' The present case was registered vide F.I.R. No, 598, dated 27-11-1982 on the statement of Muhammad Islam, truck driver. It was alleged by him that he was driving Truck No, 8999-DN and was proceeding to Chak Jhumra from Hyderabad (Sind) via Chiniot. When they were near Kot Khudayar, at about 1-30 a.m. (mid-night) on 27-11-1982, they found a log of wood was blocking the road. The truck which was being followed by another Truck No, 2099-DNA driven by Qaim Khan, was stopped. Three persons whose description was given in the F.I.R. armed with fire-arms and Khanjar, came there and searched both the trucks and took away valuables along with handker chief, purse, driving license, cash etc. After registration of the case, the police undertook investigation. Manzoor, Zulfiqar accused and Bashir petitioner were arrested for committing dacoit on Truck No, 8999-DN while Abbas, Nazir and one other accused were charged for looting Truck No, 2099-DNA. The petitioner Bashir was arrested whereafter on 17-2-1983, an application was made by the Investigating Officer for holding a test identification parade regarding him and his brother Nazir.
This parade was held in judicial lock-up by a Naib-Tehsildar of Chiniot on 18-2-1983. Thereafter, on 21-2-1983, Bashir petitioner got recovered a purse, a notebook and one handkerchief which also had the name of Muhammad Islam inscribed on it. This was so mentioned in the F.I.R. as well. The petitioner after being unsuccessful in his plea for bail before the trial Court has come up to this Court for his bail.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that Manzoor and Zulfiqar two co-accused of the petitioner were allowed bail and his case being identical to their case, the petitioner be also allowed bail. It is next contended by him that Bashir petitioner was not made to join any test identification parade and the recoveries were of no consequence, and that the challan has not so far been filed though the petitioner was arrested in February, 1983.
3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Manzoor and Zulfiqar accused were allowed bail because they were not made to join any test identification parade. Their case was, therefore, different from the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner was duly identified in a test identification parade held under the supervision of a Naib Tehsildar on 18-2-1983. The petitioner on 21-2-1983 got recovered incriminating articles including one handkerchief bearing the name of the complainant. As such, it cannot be said that the case of Bashir petitioner was that of further inquiry.
Learned counsel for the State informs that the challan has already been filed in Court and the next date of hearing is fixed for 16-8-1984 before the Maga Magistrate who will then send the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that the papers of this case were sent to the Martial Law Authorities and as such, the challan could not be filed earlier.
5. The present case against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is a case of highway robbery during night. There is evidence of recovery of incriminating articles from the petitioner who was identified by the witnesses in test identification parade. In this view of the matter I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.