1997 PLP 2454 (MLD)

1993 PCr.LJ 1919 ref. S. Mehmood Alain Rizvi for Applicant. Fareed Ahmed Dayo for the State. The applicant Qazi Abdul Nasir son of Ahmed Deen has been arrested in Crime No. 88/1993, registered at Police Station Aram Bagh for offences under sections 381, 457 and 34, P.P.C. Initially, the applicant applied for bail before the Judicial Magistrate, South Karachi which was rejected. Thereafter, his bail application was also rejected by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, as such, he has preferred the present bail application. The report in this case was lodged by Shafi‑ur‑Rehman, Manager of U.B.L, New Chaly Branch at Police Station Aram Bagh in which he stated that on 19‑5‑1993, at about 8‑45 a.m when he reached the bank, he saw that the main gate was closed and was under the impression that the Chowkidar might have gone to take tea. In the meanwhile, other staff members had also collected. Thereafter, the lock of the door had to be broken as the Chowkider did not turn up. After they entered the bank and the strong room was opened, it was found there was a big hole in the wall dividing the strong room and the adjoining room, eleven lockers were found broken and were empty, while the gunman/Chowkider was found inside with his hands tied by rope. Accordingly, the police was informed who reached the spot and conducted the investigation of the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Fareed Ahmed Dayo, Advocate for the State. The present applicant was arrested on the pointation of co‑accused Zamir Hussain. After the applicant was arrested, on the 14th day of remand he was produced before a Magistrate where his judicial confession was recorded. Some articles are also alleged to have been recovered in this case by the police, but so far as the implication of the present applicant is concerned, it is based on his judicial confession. The learned counsel for the State could not give any explanation as to why the judicial confession of the applicant was recorded 14 days after his arrest. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on a case reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 1919, whereby a Division Bench of this Court of which I was a member, granted bail to an accused against whom the only piece of evidence was his judicial confession and it was observed that the Court can consider whether the judicial confession made by the accused by itself is sufficient or not, in a given case, to deny the confession of bail to him. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the only piece of evidence against the present applicant is his judicial confession. As already mentioned, there is delay of 14 days in recording the judicial confession which is so unexplained. I may further observe that it will not be proper to make any further comments regarding the evidentiary value of the said judicial confession and suffice to say that a ground for bail is made out by the applicant. Specially so, as bail has already been granted to co‑accused Hafiz Zameer Hussain in Criminal Bail Application No. 1077 of 1993. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs 1,00,000 and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A‑1572/K Bail granted.