MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, J.- In the instant case the complainant as also the two persons who had been allegedly robbed submitted their affidavits before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge that they did not identify the accused persons and the Police of its own mentioned their names towards the end of the FIR.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was a night occurrence and the accused persons had not been identified as is evident from the FIR itself. He further states that as reflected from the order dated 8.8.1996 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant and the two persons who were allegedly robbed of had stated that they did not identify the accused persons. He further states that identification parade was not held in the present case.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and states that since the names of the accused persons were mentioned in the FIR there was no occasion to hold the identification parade.
4. After hearing the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State I am of the view that the case of the petitioner falls within sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C, as the two eye-witnesses who are alleged to have been robbed of have sworn affidavits that they did not identify the accused persons. Resultantly, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial/Ilaqa Magistrate, Pasrur, Distt. Sialkot.