1984 PLP 1315 (MLD)

Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner. Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani, Asstt. A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 18th January 1984. On 16-5-1983 at 8-00 p.m. Fida Hussain complainant, was sitting with his brothers, namely, Khadim Hussain (deceased), Ghulam Hassan, Ashiq Hussain and his maternal-uncles, namely, Allah Bachaya and Wahid Bakhsh outside their house where Muhammad Sharif, petitioner, accompanied by Ghulam Rasul, Karam Hussain and Bashir Ahmad approached them and solicited their help for removing a heavy log of wood lying at Butharwala Tubewell. Khadim Hussain (deceased) went with them but did not return home thereafter. This aroused a suspicion in the mind of the complainant who alongwith his brothers and maternal uncles (named above) went to aforementioned Ghulam Rasul, etc. and enquired from them regarding the whereabouts of Khadim Hussain whereupon the petitioner as well as his co-accused disclosed that they had since killed Khadim Hussain and thrown his dead body in a blind well belonging to Rab Nawaz Rathaib because the deceased had illicit relations with Mst. Halimen sister of Muhammad Sharif, petitioner. At this the complainant party went to the well of Rab Nawaz Rathaib and found the dead body of Khadim Hussain lying there which was taken out. Fida Hussain reported the matter at Police Station Jalalpur Pirwala at 3-00 p.m. on 17-5-1983 Post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Khadim Hussain and the doctor noted about 17 injuries on his person caused with blunt weapon which had resulted in death. The Investigating Officer collected various pieces of evidence like last seen, (ii) extra-judicial confession (iii) medical evidence and (iv) motive and arrested the petitioner as well as his co-accused on the murder charge and lodged them in jail.

2. The petitioner as well as his co-accused approached the Court of Sessions Judge. Multan for the grant of bail who by his order dated 7-11-1983 having found the extra-judicial confession as inadmissible being "joint" and the Sotas recovered from the accused as inadmissible being of no evidentiary value held the case of all the co-accused of the petitioner as one of further inquiry and granted them bail but had refused the same relief to the petitioner, for there was additional evidence of motive also against him. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court for the grant of bail.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no direct evidence on the file to connect the petitioner with the crime. He further contended that "evidence of motive" is part of the extra-judicial confession which has been declared as "inadmissible" being "joint", therefore, petitioner's case cannot be treated different from his other co-accused who have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned. Assistant Advocate-General could not successfully controvert this contention.

5. In the circumstances narrated above, I am of the view that prima facie the case of the petitioner is identical to the co-accused who have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Applying the rule of consistency, therefore, I feel disposed to allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Shujabad . S.G.D. Petition allowed.