SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Abaidullah, the complainant of FIR No,425/16, dated 25.8.2016, under sections 302, 392, 397, 411, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala (Pakpattan Sharif) has alleged that his brother Ghulam Abbas went to his agricultural land at 10.30 p.m. on 25.8.2016 to switch-off the tubewell; he did not return for a while, which caused worry to him and other family members; he along with his brother Muhammad Yousaf and another, Muhammad Ashraf moved toward their land in search of Ghulam Abbas on a motorcycle; when they were three acres away from the tubewell, they saw three unknown men (external features given in the FIR), armed with carbines wrestling with Ghulam Abbas; he and his companions saw them well in the headlight of motorcycle; the unknown accused snatched cell-phone, wrist-watch and cash Rs,3000/- from Ghulam Abbas at gunpoint and attempted to snatch his motorcycle as well; Ghulam Abbas resisted, whereon one of them fired straight at his face and the other unknown accused also targetted his face while firing; Ghulam Abbas fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot; the accused drove away his motorcycle; he and his companions could identify the accused, if they saw them again.
2. Irfan and Imran, the petitioners were arrested by the police on a suspicion under section 54, Cr.P.C. on 23.9.2016. They were sent to jail for their test identification parade, which took place on 5.10.2016, during the course of which they were correctly picked up by Abaidullah (complainant), Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Yousaf. They were formally arrested on 23.10.2016. Irfan accused got recovered a motorcycle and Rs,2000/- cash on 28.10.2016, whereas Imran accused allegedly got recovered cell-phone of the deceased and a carbine, the same day.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioners are not named in the FIR, rather they figured in this case as probable crime-committers, when arrested by the police under section 54, Cr.P.C. on 23.9.2016. According to the allegations, it was a case of robbery-cum-murder and the unknown robbers had been seen in the headlight of his motorcycle, as claimed by the complainant in the FIR and his companions, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Yousaf in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C, recorded on 25.8.2016. When test identification of the petitioners took place on 5.10.2016, the eye-witnesses, Abaidullah (complainant), Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Yousaf rendered such statements before the supervising magistrate, which virtually changed the tenor of the occurrence. Abaidullah picked up both the petitioners and said that they snatched his motorcycle, cell-phone, cash and his wrist- watch at the time of the occurrence and said nothing, if they had robbed and murdered his brother Ghulam Abbas or not. Muhammad Yousaf identified the accused/petitioners by contending that they had murdered his brother Muhammad Abbas, but said nothing, if they snatched any property from him during the occurrence. Muhammad Ashraf, the third eye-witness, also stated accordingly without saying a word about the offence of robbery. Their mentioned statements, when kept in juxtaposition with their previous statements recorded by the police, presumably make it a different circumstance as against what recorded in the FIR or in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
There exists an astounding fact in the test identification report, prepared by the learned judicial magistrate, which related to the numbering and positions of the accused/petitioners in three rows of the under trial prisoners, at the relevant time of their test identification, for, number and position of the identified accused, made no relevance to the petitioners themselves, as serial numbers, given in the report at the time of their identification denoted some other prisoners than the petitioners. Was it an unintentional mistake on the part of the learned magistrate or it was something otherwise, could only be adjudged by the learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. This is not, however, an ignorable circumstance.
4. The evidence of recovery of a motorcycle and Rs,2000/- cash at the instance of Irfan accused (petitioner) and recovery of cell-phone of the deceased along with a carbine at the instance of Imran accused may be adjudged in better terms by the learned trial court during the course of the trial. The investigating officer has not, however, prepared any memo of identification in relation thereto. Being in jail since 23.9.2016, they are hardly needed by the police for the purpose of further investigation. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that their case constituted need for further probe into their guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4(sic). Therefore, this application is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,00,000/- (ten lacs) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.