1996 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497(5)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/404/34

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13

Cancellation of bail

No other evidence was available against accused except their confessional statement

Case had already been fixed for trial

Discretion exercised by Trial Court in favour of accused could not be interfered with at such stage

Bail granted to accused by Trial Court was not recalled in circumstances. Malik Haq Nawaz for Petitioner. Muhammad Shafi, A.-G. assisted by Altaf Hussain for the State. The petitioner has moved this bail petition, being aggrieved of the order dated 19-10-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge who refused concession of bail to the extent of the petitioner. However, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to Fida Ali and Abdul Aziz against which the State has filed a petition for cancellation of their bail. Since the impugned order is one, by which both the parties are aggrieved, as such, I will dispose of both the petitions by this single order

2. The trial Judge has mainly relied on the confessional statement of the petitioner Hazara Baig which is no doubt recorded after delay of 14 days of his arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended on two points, one delay in recording confessional statement and secondly the confessional statement is recorded in the presence of the other co-accused. The confessional statement recorded after a considerable delay cannot be altogether ruled out at the bail stage simply for the point of delay. The learned counsel did argue that the confessional statement is obtained through coercive methods and also through inducement, but he is not supported in any way from the record. The second point that confessional statement of the accused is recorded in the presence of the other accused has also no legal force nor the learned counsel could convince me on this point, admittedly, it is not a joint confessional statement, had it been a joint confessional statement the submissions of the learned counsel could have carry some legal weight.

3. Not only the confessional statement, but there is other corroborative piece of evidence which is the recovery of the weapon of the offence and the empties which were sent to the Arms Expert and the positive report thereof, specially the pistol which belonged to the deceased duly licensed is recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel that the pistol was not used by the petitioner in the crime as per his confessional statement also does not carry much weight because the petitioner has been involved in the murder case and prima facie sufficient evidence is available against him at this stage.

4. Coming to the cancellation application against the two petitioners, there is no any, other piece of evidence except the confessional statement of the accused. The case has already been submitted in the Court and has also been fixed for trial.

5. In the circumstances, the trial Judge has exercised his discretion which must not be interfered at this stage and the orders of the trial Judge are I maintained. Both the petitions stand rejected. However, the trial Judge is directed to expedite the case. N.H.Q./13/G??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed