1. ' The learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the application submitted, that applicant was arrested on 13th January, 1984 but he was not put to the identification test till 22nd January, 1984 and as such no reliance can be placed on such identification test, so as to connect the present applicant with the crime in question. The learned counsel further submitted, that the alleged recovery of the engine of the motor-cycle, which was according to prosecution robbed on 3rd July, 1983 after the lapse of nearly. 6 months, by itself would not give rise to the presumption, that the applicant is a robber and/or receiver of a stolen property and as such this is a fit case for grant of bail to the present applicant. The learned counsel further submitted, that name of any eye-witness is not mentioned in the F.I.R. And as such even if prosecution case is ultimately believed, it would not fall under the Hudood Ordinance at all.
2. ' The learned Addl. A.-G. Appearing for the State, after making enquiries from I.O., who is present in Court stated, that present applicant was not put to the identification test forthwith as I.O. Was looking for other 2 co-accused persons in order to hold simultaneous identification test. The learned A.A.-G. Submitted, that identification test, recovery of the engine of the motor cycle in question from the possession of the present applicant connects the present applicant with the robbery in question and as such he strongly opposes the above application.
3. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before me and have gone through the F.I.R.
4. Keeping in view this admitted position, specifically as the reason for delay in holding identification test is neither sound nor convincing, prima facie no reliance can be placed on such delayed identification test for connecting the present applicant with the alleged crime, without any other independent corroboration. For such independent corroboration, the prosecution relies upon the recovery of the engine of the motor cycle in question from the possession of the present applicant on the day of his arrest. It may be seen that the offence is alleged to have been committed on 3rd April and the applicant was arrested on 13th January and as such prima facie automatically no adverse presumptions can be drawn for mere possession of the engine in question. In view of the above tentative conclusions arrived at by me, in my opinion prosecution case against the present applicant would require further inquiry, at the stage of trial both under section 392, P.P.C., and/or under section 411, P.P.C.
5. ' Therefore, I allow the above application and direct that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. ' Any observations made by me on the merits of the prosecution case are tentative and as such shall not be binding on the learned trial Court, while disposing of the case in question on merits.
7. ' I further direct the office to forward the copy of this order to Inspector General of Police, Karachi, so that he may be able to issue necessary instructions to all the police officers dealing with the investigation of criminal cases, that non-holding of identification test immediately could be fatal to the prosecution case and as such the identification test in all the cases must be held forthwith, without delay, so as to avoid creation of doubts in the prosecution case.