1. Granted.
' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Muhammad Suhail Khan is facing trial under sections 395 and 382, P.P.C. In Sessions Case No,520 of 1998 before learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) arising out of F.I.R. No,52 of 1998 of Police Station Sharea Faisal, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by one Amanur Rehman on 31-3-1998, are reproduced herein below:-- "I am residing on the above address. On 13th March, 1998 at about 14-30 hours I was present at my house when one unknown woman entered into the house of mine and enquired about my son Kamran. In the meanwhile seven youngsters, whose names and addresses are not known to me, duly armed with T.T. Pistols, entered into the house and obtained the keys of Almirah on the point of arms and took away the different golden ornaments, prize bonds, cash, two mobile phones and one brief case. During this period my son Kamran also entered into the house who was also harassed by them and thereafter, all the accused person went away from the house along with the articles mentioned above. Thereafter, I remained in search of the accused persons and property but could not get any clue. Now, I have come at police station for report.
' I request for legal action. The detail about the golden ornaments and prize bonds will be provided later on."
3. Applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his request was refused by impugned order, dated 8-8-1998.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has contended that his client is innocent and F.I.R. Is belated by 18 days; that no identification test of the applicant/accused was half after his arrest; that the recovery was wade in disregard of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. And it cannot be believed; that the numbers of robbed prize bonds were not given in the F.I.R.; that the F.I.R. Discloses that seven persons entered in the house whereas challan has been submitted against thirteen persons; that the applicant/accused is a young person, therefore, his case necessitates further enquiry and applicant/accused is entitled to bail.
5. Mr. Dilawar Hussain, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail and he has contended that the contentions urged amount to deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under the law at the stage of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. The alleged incident occurred at about 2-30 p.m. Applicant/accused along with co-accused barged into the house of informant duly armed with lethal weapon and at the point of arm by putting the informant in fear of death they committed the daylight dacoity. The share of robbed property received by the applicant/ accused as booty was produced by him before the police.
8. The recovery of booty from applicant/accused, prima facie, suggests culpability of the applicant/accused under section 412 P.P.C., which is punishable with imprisonment for life or ten years and fine.
9. Looking to the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, prima facie, no violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is made out. The statement of police men cannot be discarded at this stage as a police man is as good a witness as any other person until and unless evidence is brought on record to discredit him.
10. So far as to non-mention of the numbers of prize bonds in the F.I.R. Is concerned, no one remembers the numbers of prize bonds and it is not necessary that the numbers must be given in ,F.I.R. Merely An applicant/accused is a young man or F.I.R. Shows that seven persons entered in the house whereas challan has been forwarded against thirteen persons is no _ground for grant of bail. Moreover, this requires deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence, which in my view is not permissible under law at the stage of bail. The law is well-settled that for the grant or refusal of bail only tentative assessm ent is to be made.
11. In respect of delay, complainant has stated in the F.I.R. That he remained in search of the accused and property. It is in keeping with natural human .Conduct that under such situation and circumstances aggrieved persons try to locate the where about of accused and property in the first instance then take any further step. Under the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that prima facie plausible explanation for delay has been ,given in registration of the F.I.R.
12. So far the contention of the learned counsel that the name of accused does not transpire in F.I.R.
Or that no identification parade was held is concerned is misconceived, as identification test is not a requirement of law. In this context the dicta laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Akhar v. The State repelled in 1998 SCM R 2538 is reproduced herein below:- - "...Holding of identification test is not a requirement of law. It is only one of the methods to test veracity of the evidence of an eye-witness who has had an occasion to see the accused and claims to identify him."
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant/accused is not entitled to bail and consequently his bail application stands dismissed .
14. The observations made herein above are of tentative nature and they shall not in any way influence trail Court while finally disposing of the case, which it is need less to say will be decided by the trial Court upon the evaluation of evidence brought on record at the stage of trial.