1. ' This application under sections 497 and 498, Cr.P. C. Has been presented on behalf of the accused Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Ayoob, who are involved in a crime Case No,76 of 1988 of Police Station Sakrand for offence under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution case shortly stated is that on 22-7-1988 at about 11-00 hours, the injured Abdul Ghaffar, the brother-in-law of the complainant Muhammad Akram was robbed of Rs, 7,000 while he was going on his motor cycle at about 11-30 a.m. By three unknown persons, who also caused him fire-arm injuries by pistol, which the two of the three accused were allegedly carrying with them. Neither the names of the culprits nor their features are given in the F .I.R . The F .I.R. Was lodged at Police Station Sakrand on the same day at 14-00 hours. The accused Abdul Rashid was arrested on 4-8-1988. He was granted bail by the learned District and Sessions Judge on 8-8-1988; whereas the accused Muhammad Ayoob was granted protective bail by this Court on 25-8-1988 for appearance before the trial Court within 10 days. It was on 4-9-1988 that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nawabshah granted him interim bail. On 21-9-1988 the State (D.P.E.) moved an application for cancellation of bail granted to accused Abdul Rashid. This application came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge on 6-10-1988. The case of confirmation of bail of Muhammad Ayoob was also. Fixed on that date. The learned Sessions Judge by a combined order dated 6-10-1988 cancelled the bail granted to accuse Abdul Rashid and also declined to confirm the interim bail granted to Muhammad Ayoob. Hence the applicants have made this application for grant of bail.
2. ' The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for declining the applicants benefit of bail are that a sum of Rs,2,500 in currency notes was recovered from the possession of each of the two accused. The accused Abdul Rashid was identified by the injured on 9-8-1988 in an identification test held before the Illrd Class Magistrate, Nawabshah whereas the accused Muhammad Ayoob was identified by B 'the injured on 15-9-1988 when he was held up in police custody having been arrested on 12-9-19813 in connection with some other offence allegedly committed by him. A motor cycle Honda 110 was also allegedly produced by the accused Muhammad Ayoob on 18-9-1988.
3. ' Mr. A . Q . Ha lepota, learned counsel for the applicants c vehemently urged that none of the three factors taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge for cancelling the bail of accused Abdul Rashid and in not confirming the ad interim bail granted to accused Muhammad Ayoob are insufficient individually and collectively to justify the passing of the impugned order. The counsel urged that the recovery of the amount in question from the houses of the accused persons was of no consequence inasmuch as there was no identification mark on the currency notes recovered from them. He vehemently urged that the identification test held after 5 days of the arrest of Abdul Rashid and after about 3 days of the arrest of Muhammad Ayoob was of no evidentiary value in connecting the accused with the commission of the offences. The council also vehemently urged that it is evident from the police diary that on 9-8-1988 accused Abdul Rashid was taken from the Police Station Sakrand to Police Station Nawabshah and was ultimately produced before the Magistrate for identification test by the injured person. There was, therefore, the learned counsel so urged, sufficient opportunityto the police to have shown accused to the injured and further no justification has been given as to why the identification test could not be done immediately after the arrest of the accused persons. He, therefore, submitted that the picking out of the accused at the identification test was not a circumstance in the facts of this case which could be given any importance for declining the grant of bail to the accused persons. In regard to accused Muhammad Ayoob, the learned counsel also drew my attention to the fact that although his identification test was held at Sakrand but before the accused was taken for identification test to the Magistrate the injured had been called and was present at the Police Station Sakrand and thus, he had enough opportunity to see the accused person. Moreover, he emphasised that the accused was also cautioned that he should cover his face as the person, who had to identify him was present at police station. This circumstance, the learned counsel submitted, by itself was sufficient to cast doubt on the value of the identification test.
4. ' Mr. M. Hayat Qureshi, learned State Counsel, on the other hand strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicants. He contended that the victim was caused grievous fire-arm injuries, that the above-mentioned articles had been recovered from the accused and that the victim had also correctly identified them at the identification parade held before the Magistrates. All these facts and circumstances, he so urged, were sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. He also urged that the Receipt No,714 of Rs,50s0 which is mentioned in the F.I.R. Was also recovered from accused Abdul Rashid and it further shows his implication in the commission of the offences. The learned counsel for State also submitted that the delay of 5 days in the case of Abdul Rashid and of 3 days in the case of Muhammad Ayoob in holding the Identification Test was justified looking to the nature of injuries sustained by accused and of his having been discharged from the hospital on 30-7-1988 with an advice to take bed rest for 10 days. I find that in the instant case no tangible evidence constituting reasonable ground to connect the applicants-accused with the alleged offence, was available. The solitary piece of evidence which may, prima facie, lead to believe that the present accused were the persons connected with the alleged offence is their identification by the victim at the identification test. But looking to the delay in holding the Identification Test, and that too in the manner as highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicants, that factor too does not justify the refusal of the concession of bail to both the accused.
5. The production of Honda Motor-cycle by the accused Muhammad Ayoob more particularly when no Registration number of the Honda Motor-cycle used in the commission of offences is mentioned in the F.I.R. And so also the recovery of currency notes of the value of Rs,2,500 from each of the accused, do not lead to the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences. Further the fact as to which of them had fired at the injured also requires investigation. The recovery of the receipt of Rs,500 from accused Abdul Rashid has not been given any importance even by the learned Sessions Judge.
6. ' Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case I feel inclined to extend the concession of bail to the applicants and direct that they be released on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,25,000 each, with P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.