1. ' This application has been presented on behalf of Ali Gohar son of Bakshan, who is facing trial vide Crime No, 610 of 1987 of Police Station Kot Digi, District Khairpur.
2. ' The prosecution case is that on 31-10-1987 at about 200 hours a dacoit was committed at the Rajpar Petrol Pump by six dacoits who were armed with fire-arms. The report was lodged on the same day at 5-00 a.m. The accused applicant above-named was arrested on 31-10-1987 and an identification test was held on 1-11-1987 when three eye-witnesses, namely, complainant, Saeed Khan and Mohammad Zafar, Hotel-keeper, identified him. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that since neither the features of the accused persons are given in the F.I.R. Nor their names are given therein and hence it is a case which requires further enquiry as to whether the applicant was one of the six alleged persons who committed the robbery. The council also emphasized that two of the eye-witnesses, namely, complainant Jewan s/o Sodo Khan and Saeed Khan s/o Wahid Bux, employees of the petrol pump, have exonerated the applicant. In their affidavits they have specifically deposed that the applicant was known to them and that he was not amongst the culprits. They had further deposed that they did not take part in the identification test.
3. ' Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the police papers available with him submitted that in fact after recording the F.I.R. The police had chased the culprits and that there had been an exchange of fire between the dacoits and the police party. As a result thereof 5 persons succeeded in making their escape good whereas the applicant abovenamed made an entry in a nearby house and he was arrested from there.
4. ' From his possession the looted property comprising of a tape-recorder and watch and the cash amounting to Rs,3,500 was recovered from him. Mohammad Zafar, Hotel-Keeper, has identified the said looted property which belong to him and so also he has identified the applicant in the identification test held on the very next day of his arrest.
5. ' Having heard the arguments of the parties' counsel I do not find that it is a case of further enquiry.
6. The involvement of the applicant above named in the commission of the crime is prima facie proved by the alleged recovery of the looted property as mentioned above. The mere fact that two of the eye-witnesses it have given their affidavits exculpating the accused applicant would not at this stage justify of his being released on bail. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
7. ' The learned counsel for the applicant at this stage states that the applicant may be permitted to repeat the application for bail after some evidence is brought on record.
8. ' This request appears to be reasonable and he is allowed to do so.