2013 PLP 598 (MLD)

SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Tariq, has sought concession of post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.25 of 2012 dated 10-2-2012 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Maroot District Bahawalnagar.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused Mst. Iram Bibi, administered intoxicants to Khursheed Ahmad and then committed his murder by throttling and buried his dead body in the crop of mustard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one; that it is an unseen occurrence in which the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of extra judicial confession which is the very weak type of evidence; that the cause of death is unknown as is evident from the final opinion of the medical expert; that no poison was detected from the visceras, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and as such he is entitled to the concession of bail. Relies on cases titled "Muhammad Wasim v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 387)", "Nazir Ahmad v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 700 (Lahore))", "Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 184)" and "Niaz Ali v. The State and another (2003 YLR 163 (Peshawar))".

4. On the other hand learned D.P.G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition and it is contended that the petitioner along with his co-accused administered poison to the deceased, committed his murder by throttling and concealed his dead body in the crop, which was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner; that sufficient incriminating material is available on record against the petitioner. It is further contended that the trial is in progress, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant relies on case titled "Allah Ditta and others v. The State (1990 SCMR 307)".

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned DPG for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.

6. Although the petitioner is the nominated accused of the F.I.R. with the allegation of making extra judicial confession that he along with his co-accused administered intoxicant to the deceased and then committed his murder by throttling and concealed the dead body in the crop of mustard and the dead body was recovered on his pointation yet extra-judicial confession is very weak type of evidence and its value will be seen at the time of trial. According to the final report of the medical expert, the cause of death in this case is unknown.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the trial is in progress, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail and relies on case titled "Allah Ditta and others v. The State (1990 SCMR 307)". But Hon'ble. Supreme Court has observed in case titled ""Mazhar Hussain v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 887 (Supreme Court of Pakistan))" that the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the trial is likely to be concluded within a couple of months, would not deter this Court from granting bail, when a case for further inquiry is made out.

8. This Court has held in case titled "Munir v. The State (2002 MLD 712 (Lahore))" that it bail sometimes was refused to an accused on the consideration of commencement of a trial, but that consideration was to be based purely upon propriety. Whenever a question of propriety was confronted with a question of right, the later must prevail and commencement of a trial would pose no insurmountable hurdle in the way of bail when the accused was succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry.

9. It is settled law that in case of further inquiry, bail is to be granted as a matter of right and not by way of any concession or grace. A bail petition is required to be disposed of within the framework of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the mere fact that the petitioner is involved in a case falling within the Prohibitory Clause would not be sufficient for the rejection of bail if the case is of further inquiry.

10. The petitioner has allegedly made extra judicial confession before the P.Ws. but the said confession is joint one. According to the report of the medical expert, the cause of death is unknown and the veracity of evidence would be definitely ascertained by the learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence. The extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence. In view of above discussion, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and as such he is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance in this respect can be safely placed on case titled "Muhammad Wasim v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 387)". The petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/M-44/L Bail granted.