1. ' The facts in brief of this bail application are that complainant Murlidhar lodged report on 20-12- 1994 at Police Station, Shandadkot as Crime No,156 of 1994 mentioning therein that on the above date at 11-00 a.m. He and P.Ws. Takht Rai and Partab Rai were present at the Commission shop of his father when two person, one armed with pistol and other with dagger, came inside the shop.
2. Complainant was robbed cash of Rs,6,715 which he was counting. On the cries of complainant party, neighbourers came running and complainant grappled the culprit having a dagger. The other culprit ran away. Complainant snatched Rs,715 and dagger from the apprehended culprit who disclosed his name to be Sawan. The said Sawan told the name of other culprit to be Dildar, the applicant. Complainant brought the accused and robbed property at Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. Applicant was arrested and challaned and bail application was filed in the trial Court which was dismissed on 1-2-1995 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadkot, as such this bail application. Mr. Khalid Iqbal Memon learned Advocate for applicant contended that the name of applicant has been disclosed by co-accused Sawan before the complainant party and police which has got no value in the eyes of law. His next contention was that applicant was arrested on 28-12-1994 and identification test was held on 2-1-1995 i,e, after five days of his arrest and no explanation has been given for the delay in holding the identification test specially when the P.Ws. Were present in the town of Shandadkot. He further contented that other piece of evidence against applicant is that of recovery of Rs,4,400, as per learned counsel, this recovery of the notes of common circulation of which no denomination has been given in the F.I.R. Or disclosed by the complainant party. He has relied upon 1987 PCr.LJ page 2423, 1989 PCr.LJ page 1123, PLD 1991 FSC page 53, 1993 PCr.LJ 1919 and 1995 PCr.L.I 645.
3. ' Mr. Yar Muhammad Abbasi learned Advocate for State opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that there is evidence of identification test and that of recovery against the application.
4. From the perusal of F.I.R., it is clear that neither complainant nor the police officer recording the F.I.R.
5. Has given the features/descriptions of the applicant in the F.I.R. At the time of recording F.I.R.
6. Though this incident had taken place at 11-00 a.m. Which is a clear day time and the faces of the accused were also open. 1989 PCr.LJ page 1123 is very much applicable in this soft of circumstances as according to this citation, it was necessary for the officer recording F.I.R. To mention the features in the F.I.R. And also police officer recording 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of P.Ws. Accused was arrested on 28-12-1994 and he was put to identification test on 2-1-1995. No explanation has been given for this delay in holding the identification test. 1987 PCr.LJ Part III page 2423 and 1995 PCr.LJ page 645 support the contention of applicant on the point of identification test and recovery. So far the point that the name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused Sawan, 1993 PCr.LJ page 1919 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, shows that even the name disclosed by co-accused in confession, is not a sufficient evidence and bail has also been granted.
7. ' Taking into consideration all the contentions, the case of applicant becomes that of further enquiry. He is allowed bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.