1. ' The applicants Nadeem Ali and Asif Ali, who are brothers stand charged with the offence of having committed Harabah in the house of Mst. Hanifa Begum on 3-12-1996 and the report in that respect was lodged at Police Station Khawaja Ajmair Nagri, District Central Karachi on 30-12-1996 by Mst.
2. Hanifa Begum, under F.I.R. No,314 of 1996. In nutshell the contents of the F.I.R. Disclose that Mk. Hanifa Begum resided in a house alongwith her two daughters and a son by name Javed. On 3-12-1996 at about 4-30 p.m. Three young persons armed with T.T. Pistols and a revolver entered the house and by show of arms they robbed gold ornaments and cash sum of Rs,5,000 from the house. The ornaments belonged to the two daughters of Mst. Hanifa Begum and the same were robbed from them when they were wearing the same on their bodies. Mst. Hanifa Begum did not lodge the report due to fear but it is stated that she got the report lodged on 30-12-1996 at the police station and she gave also the description of the assailants in the F.I.R. The police is said to have arrested the applicants on 1-1-1997 when they were found in possession of unlicensed arms and on 5-1-1997, they were in custody of the police therefore, formal arrest in this case was also recorded by the police in presence of the two official witnesses at the police station. The evidence collected against the applicants is that of pointation of the house of the informant lady Mst. Hanifa Begum by the applicants. There is no recovery of any stolen property from the possession of the applicants nor the applicants have been subjected to any identification test through any of the inmates of the house who were present at the time of the incident. The incident took place on 3.12-1996 whereas the FIR. Was registered after a period of 27 days on 30th December, 1996. Apparently the only explanation given by Mst. Hanifa Begum was that she was afraid due to the arms the culprits were holding in their hands. Learned counsel for the State has although opposed the grant of bail of the applicants but he has on perusing the police papers conceded that apart from the pointation to the place of incident by the applicants no other admissible evidence has been collected by the police against the applicants. Memo. Of inspection of the place of incident appears to have been prepared by the police on 8-1-1997 when it is stated that the applicants volunteered to show the place of incident to the police on that occasion. It is stated in the memo. That Mst. Hanifa Begum and Javed pointed out to the police that the applicants were the same persons who had committed the Harrabah in their house on 3-12-1996.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that such evidence is a very scanty evidence for implicating the accused and conviction cannot be based on such evidence.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and I am of the view that the case required further inquiry against the applicants as far as their involvement in the offence of Harrabah is concerned. I, therefore, allow this application and it is ordered that the applicants may be released on bail on their furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R.
5. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. ' While parting with this order I feel that the police has not performed its duties inasmuch as after the arrest of the applicants on 1-1-1997 in some other case, and after showing the formal arrest of the applicants in the present case on 5-1-1997, the police should have collected the evidence in the form of identification of the applicants through the witnesses in presence of some Magistrate or at least should have collected some other circumstantial evidence in the case but the way in which the investigation had been conducted leaves room for further action in the matter. The copy of this order may be handed over to the learned Advocate-General to see that it is brought to the notice of the superiors of the Investigating Officer for appropriate action.