1. By this single order, I propose to dispose of Criminal Bail Application Nos.65, 66 and 67 of 2000 as all the three bail applications have arisen out of the same F.I.R.
2. The applicants are facing trial in Sessions Case No,152 of 1999 under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance read with sections 395, 342, P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R. No,22 of 1999 of Police Station Gharo, District Thatta.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by the complainant Zafar Abbas Palijo in his application, dated 31st May, 1999 addressed to S.P., Thatta contents whereof were later incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. Book are that the complainant was serving as Executive Engineer, Gharo Division Civil K.W.S.B. And his duty was to monitor the water supply to Karachi City. It is further mentioned that on 31st May, 1999 a breakdown occurred at Dhabeji Pumping Station and complainant had to go by Jeep to Haleji. At about 3-00 a.m. He reached at Link Road, when about 9 persons who were not known to the complainant, duly armed with lethal weapons stopped the vehicle and directed the complainant to step down from Jeep. These persons snatched costly watch and three thousand cash from the possession of complainant on gun-point. They blind- folded him and put him in the Jeep. The hands and legs of the complainant were tied with iron wire of the wireless set which was installed in his Jeep. When they reached near Kali Mori Junghshahi Road they left the complainant in the jungle and took away his Jeep. In the morning at 7-30 a.m.
4. Some persons saw him in the jungle who untied him. The Jeep was found by him abandoned at the distance of about 2 kilometres from the place of his confinement. The wireless set installed in the Jeep was, however, not available.
5. During the course of investigation, the applicants accused were arrested and sent up to stand trial.
6. The applicants/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but their bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 27-9-1999.
7. I have heard Mr. Nadir Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants/accused and Mr. Habibur Rasheed learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State. The latter has vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicants/accused.
8. The material placed on record shows that without loss of time the complainant reported the matter to the S.P., Thatta on the next morning by way of application and its contents were subsequently, incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. Book. The applicants/accused were arrested on 4-6-1999 and 8-7-1999, and on 10-7-1999 and their identification test was held before the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., Gharo, District Thatta. The complainant correctly picked the accused in the said identification test. Apart from that the alleged robbed articles and crime weapons were also recovered from the possession of the applicants/accused during the course of investigation. The contention of the learned counsel of applicants/accused that the same dummies were mixed with the each accused in all the identification tests, therefore, the identification test is to be struck down.
9. This contention is misconceived. It is not pointed out that by mixing the same dummies what prejudice was caused to the applicants/accused.
10. The holding of identification test is not a requirement of law. It is only one of the methods to test the veracity of the evidence of an eye-witness who has had an occasion to see the accused and claimed to identify the culprits. In this context I am fortified by the decision in case of Muhammad Akbar v. The State reported in 1998 SCM R 2538.
11. It is well-settled that for the purpose of bail only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not called for. Consequently, this application merits no consideration and it is dismissed accordingly.