2005 PLP 1468 (MLD)

Through this petition Muhammad Aslam-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.147, registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara on 18-3-2004 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. During the investigation section 377, P.P.C. and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 were added to the F.I.R.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with the noticeable delay. Admittedly the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed. The petitioner has not been nominated in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever and his name had been introduced through a supplementary statement made by the complainant. So far there are only two pieces of evidence available on the record tending to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences, i.e., firstly, the last-seen evidence provided by Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Javed Iqbal P.Ws. and secondly, an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner and his co-accused on 19-3-2004 before Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Sharif P.Ws. The said witnesses had made their statements before the Investigating Officer regarding the extra-judicial confession on 22-3-2004, i.e., after three days of the alleged making of those confessions. Prima facie the statements made by the said witnesses shows that the confessions allegedly made by the petitioner and his co-accused before the said witnesses had the trappings of a joint confession and thus, .their evidentiary value is suspect at this stage. The worth and evidentiary value of the last-seen evidence shall be gone into by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial. There is no other evidence directly connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It may not be out of place to mention these that the petitioner is stated to be aged about sixteen years and the challan against him has been submitted before a Juvenile Court. In this view of the matter the case against the petitioner attracts the provisions of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. besides attracting the provisions of section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 entitling the petitioner to bail to such a stage.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. besides attracting the provisions of the first proviso to subsection (1) of the Juvenile Justice System B Ordinance, 2000. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./1081/L Bail granted.