' The brief facts as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Muhammad Ramzan on 24-6-2003 at 2200 hours at Police Station, Pano Akil under section 17(3) Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 are that he is working as Conductor on Bus No.A-0143 which on the day of incident was being driven by driver Zameer Hussain son of Allah Bux Lanjar resident of Nusrat Colony Sukkur. Sajjad Mangi Cleaner of that Bus was also with them while they were taking the passengers to Multan. On the way some of the passengers as well as complainant were robbed by six persons at the points of guns and knives.
After committing robbery said six persons stopped the Bus near Sangi Bus Stop and ran away. It is alleged that internal lights of said Bus were on and accused were fully seen and could identified if seen again.
2. Bail application of the present applicant was rejected by the learned trial Court on 9-12-2003 mainly on the ground that his name was disclosed by co-accused in their statements before the police during the investigation.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is absolutely no tangible piece of evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence except the word of co-accused Nasibullah, Haji and Imdad before the police. It has been further argued that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. And also his "Huila" and feature are not shown therein. It is further contended that after arrest, applicant was not put to identification test and even there is no recovery either of a crime weapon or looted property from his person. Learned counsel has therefore, vehemently urged that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
4. Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Shar learned State counsel has opposed to the grant of bail and argued that the applicant is one of the culprits as disclosed by his other accompalices. So for the ground taken that no identification test was held Mr. Shar tried to justify the same by stating that the witnesses might not be available being the Bus driver, conductor the cleaner. The explanation does not appear to be convincing and it cannot cover the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer either intentionally with some dishonest intention to give undue favour to the accused or due to lack of knowledge and inefficiency. Be that as it may, it is for the concerned D.P.O. And D.I.-G. To look into the matter and take an appropriate action against the delinquent officials of the investigation branch under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court. A copy of this order will be sent to them.
5. However, the fact remains that the name of the applicant, his Huila or feature do not find place in the F.I.R. And that after his arrest he was not put to identification through the complainant of the driver or the conductor of the said Bus who are shown to be residents of Sukkur and Bohri and that there is no other tangible piece of evidence against him except the word of co-accused while being in police custody, as such there are grounds to hold that a case of further inquiry is made out. Applicant Bakhsho alias Bakhshal shall be released on bail if he furnishes one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.