1999 PLP 128 (YLR)

Jan Muhammad and 6 others v. The State 1997 MLD 81; Nisar Ahmad and others v. The State 1997 MLD 2575 and Sheraz Ahmad v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 709 ref. Wali Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioners. Sh. Jamal‑ud‑Din for the State. A case under section 302/34, P.P.C., was registered against the petitioners and others at the report of Aas Muhammad Lamberdar of the area from where the dead body of the deceased namely Muhammad Nadeem was recovered. It was a blind murder. It however, transpired during investigation that the murder was committed by the present petitioners and their two brothers namely Ijaz Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad. Earlier to that the father of the deceased namely Muhammad Aslam had filed a report under section 365, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No.37 of 1998 at Police Station, Sadar Sangla Hills, District Sheikhupura that his son Muhammad Nadeem was abducted by Aftab Ahmad i.e., the petitioner and was taken to Lahore and since then he was not traceable. Later on the aforesaid Aftab Ahmad and his brothers Ijaz Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad appeared before Muhammad Salim and disclosed that they had murdered the deceased. On the basis of that extra judicial confession investigation proceeded in which conclusion was drawn by the Investigating Officer that accused namely Ijaz Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad were innocent and as such they were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan. Hence their bail petitions were accepted by this Court vide order, dated 29‑9‑1998 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4576‑B of 1998.

2. The present petitioners have filed this petition on the ground that their case is not distinguishable from their co‑accused, who have been admitted to bail. In this respect, it is contended that it was a blind murder and the petitioner have been involved on the basis of extra‑judicial confession before Muhammad Aslam, who is father of the deceased and one Muhammad Salim, who is a brother of the aforesaid Muhammad Aslam. Since the extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, therefore, it could not be relied upon without corroboration of intrinsic nature. It was also contended that extra judicial confession in this case appears to be unnatural and was illegal and infirm because it was made jointly by ‑all the accused. Hence it was inadmissible and the petitioners were entitled to bail. Reliance was placed on Jan Muhammad and 6 others v. The State reported as 1997 MLD 81 (Lahore), Nisar Ahmad and others v. The State reported as 1997 MLD 2575 (Lahore) and Sheraz Ahmad v. The State reported as 1997 PCr.LJ 709 (Lahore) to say that the petitioners have a case of further inquiry so as to be entitled to bail.

3. The bail petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that there is sufficient evidence with the prosecution to bring home the guilt in respect of the murder of the deceased against the present petitioners, and that the deeper appreciation of the merits of the case cannot be made at this stage. It is urged that facts in the reported cases are different than the facts of the present case in which investigation was thoroughly and honestly conducted whereby two of the accused were found innocent and were placed in Column No.2 whereas there was sufficient evidence with the prosecution to show that the present petitioners were guilty and as such they have been placed in Column No.3 of the challan and sent up for trial to the Court concerned. Hence their case was distinguishable from their co‑accused, who were admitted to bail.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that deeper appreciation of the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage. It is true that extra‑judicial confession is a weak type of evidence but still if it inspires confidence at the trial, it can be taken into consideration to bring home the guilt of the offenders. That stage would only come, when the petitioners face the trial and at this stage it will not be possible to enter into the culpability or non‑culpability of the present petitioners particularly when they have been linked with the murder of the deceased by two witnesses namely Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Salim, who have no enmity with the petitioners. Even otherwise the F.I.R. was registered against one of the petitioner namely Aftab Ahmad that he had taken away the deceased to Lahore and thereafter, whereabouts of the deceased were not known till his murder. In such a situation the petitioners have no case for bail at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑59/L Bail refused.