1. ' Applicant Nabi Bux alias Nabu has applied for bail in a case in which he is being tried for offence under sections 393 and 452, P.P.C. Read with section 22 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Incident took place at 1-45 p.m. In the house of complainant situate in Mehar Shah Qubo, Awan Mohalla in the city of Shikarpur. According to F.I.R.
2. Three culprits with their faces open entered the house of complainant and from them two were armed with pistols and one was armed with knife. Culprits with pistols alerted the complainant and aimed their pistols at him while culprit with knife asked him for kcv of safe. Jamshed Ahmed nephew of complainant saw this happening from the ventilator in the upper portion of the house and raised cries. Witnesses, namely, Zahir Hussain and Shahid Hussain and other neighbours came to the spot. Meanwhile culprits took to their heels and were chased by the witnesses. Culprits armed with pistols fired in the air and succeeded in escaping while culprit with knife was apprehended by the witnesses and persons from the neighbourhood and was broughl to the police station where F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant Karim Bux.
3. ' Nabi Bux who has applied for bail is according to the case of the prosecution one of the two culprits who were armed with pistols and had succeeded in running away. He was arrested on 11- 9-1988 and his identification test took place on 12-9-1988. He is correctly picked out by complainant Karim Bux and eye-witnesses Jamshed and Shahid Hussain.
4. ' Bail plea on behalf of this applicant is urged on the grounds firstly that no description of this applicant was given in F.I.R. By the complainant and 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses which were recorded on the same day. Second ground urged is that identification took place after 14 days of the incident. Before I deal with case-law on the subject cited by the learned counsel I would like to point out that I have very carefully studied the contents of the F.I.R. Which is written by S.H.O. Police Station Staurt Ganj (Ghulam Shabir S.I.). The same S.H.O.Has recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the eye-witnesses. The very narration of the facts of the incident clearly shows that culprits were there in the house for quite some time and their faces were open. They were seen and chased by the witnesses. Even then no attempt was made by the Police Officer to record description of those culprits who ran away from the spot. No description of such accused was recorded in the statements of eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. It is the bounden duty of the Police officer to record description and inquire about it from the complainant and eye-witnesses at the ,ery outset when F.I.R. And police statements are being recorded. This is to en-,are that they are speaking truth and they have seen the incident and the faces of the accused persons clearly.
5. ' In the instant case incident took place at about 1-45 p.m. Which is broad daylight and the complainant and other witnesses have categorically stated that the faces of the culprits were not muffled or covered. I do not see any reason why Police Officer should not ask the complainant and witnesses to give description of such accused persons. Absence of recording of description in F.I.R.
6. And police statements can happen for two reasons. Firstly that Police Officer who records F.I.R. And police statements is ignorant of law or secondly he wants to shield such culprits and such omission is deliberate and motivated. I am constrained to make these remarks for the reason that the robberies and dacoities which are taking place now-a-days in the interior of Province are so frequent that people have started feeling unsafe and there is hue and cry in the information media that lives and properties of citizens are not being adequately protected by the persons who are supposed to be custodian of law. It is high time that in order to nip this evil in the bud, Police Officers become more careful in performance of their duties and take all steps which are necessary to make proper investigation according to law so that the culprits should be held up and punished according to law if the case is proved against them.
7. ' Now so far case-law is concerned, reference can be made to the case of Lal Pasand v. State PLD 1981 SC 142 in which the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that it is not safe, except in exceptional circumstances to base conviction on the evidence of solitary eye-witness particularly when witness could have only fleeting glimps of accused and no description of such accused is given by the witness in his statement to the police. Mere description of accused as having green eyes and thin neck was considered as not sufficient description because such description is applicable to large number of persons. In the case of Gulab v. State 1974 P Cr. L J 74 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused who was a complete stranger to prosecution witnesses and his description was not given in F.I.R. And also in police statements of eyewitnesses. In the case of Mehar alias Fazal Muhammad v. State 1978 P Cr. L J 176 ZA. Channa, J.
8. (as he then was) allowed bail in a criminal case in which identification took place 18 days after the incident and no blood-stained weapon was recovered from him. Lastly in the case of Muhammad Akbar v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 1677 Muhammad Aslam Mian, J has granted bail in a criminal case in which prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence only to connect that accused with offence.
9. It was held that in the circumstances the case becomes a case of further enquiry and attracted provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
10. For the facts and reasons stated above I grant bail to applicant Nabi Bux alias Nabu in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety and P.R. In the like amount to B the satisfaction of the trial Court.
11. ' Copy of this order may be sent to Home Secretary and I.-G. Police, Sind for whatever action they think fit and proper to be taken against the Police Officer.