KHALID PAUL KHAWAJA, J.- On 7.7.1996 at 11.30 p.m. At Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura a case under section 395 PPC was registered against five unknown persons at the instance of Muhammad Ashraf complainant, it was alleged that on 7.7.1996 at 10.30 p.m. The complainant drove the factory-bus in which the factory-workers were sitting. Two persons also boarded the said bus and when it had covered a short distance one of them pulled out a mauser and fired. He directed the complainant to divert the bus towards Mangtanwala road his companion was also armed with a mauser. When the bus reached near Purana Bhatia the said to persons directed the complainant to stop. Three companions of the said persons were standing there out of whom to were armed with 222 rifle and a carbine. The 3rd one was empty handed. All of them asked the persons sitting in the bus to alight whereafter they conducted their personal search and they deprived them of cash, wrist watches, identity cards and company-cards etc. They also injured some of the workers with the butts of the rifle. Thereafter the aforesaid accused decamped.
2. On 14.7.1996 during the investigation of the case Adil petitioner was arrested as one of the accused and on 23.7.1996. Tariq petitioner was arrested on the same allegation. They were subjected to an identification parade on 30.7.1996. On 27.7.1996 Tariq petitioner led to the recovery of 30-bore pistol and five live bullets. On 15.8.1996 he led to the recovery of three stolen wrist watches and a sum of Rs. 123/- in cash from his house. On 14.7.1996 Adil petitioner is said to have led to the recovery of three stolen wrist watches and a sum of Rs. 1200/- from his house.
3. Tariq and Adil accused, petitioners herein, have applied for their post arrest bail.
4. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. The identification parade in question has been subjected to severe criticism by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is pointed out that the parade was held after an inordinate delay which had not been sufficiently explained, that at the time of the said parade the to petitioners had objected that they had been shown to the PWs at the Police Station, that while identifying the petitioners the PWs did not mention as to what role they had played during the occurrence, that Muhammad Ashraf complainant was an eye-witness of the occurrence failed to identify Tariq petitioner and that Pervaiz Aslam and Khalid Hussain injured PWs were not associated with the said identification parade. Relying on Lal Pasand v. The State (PLD 198l SC 142) the learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the identification parade in question was of no value and reliance on it could not be placed. As regards recoveries it has been pointed out that from the FIR it is not shown that any of the accused was armed with 30-bore pistol and thus recovery of the said weapon from Tariq petitioner did not connect him with the crime. No weapon was recovered in this case from Adil petitioner. However, it is stated that on 14.7.1996 he had led to the recovery of three stolen wrist watches and a sum of Rs. 1200/- from his house. The recovery memos, dated 14.7.1996, 27.7.1996 and 15.8.1996 reveal that no witness from the public was associated with the recovery proceedings which was violation of section 103 Cr.P.C, and rendered the said recoveries doubtful.
6. Learned counsel for the State could not adequately controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I, therefore, hold that the case requires further inquiry and the petitioners' are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate.