1986 PLP (2) (MLD)

Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Petitioner. Riaz Ali Abbasi for the State. This bail petition has been moved on behalf of Muhammad Azam who stands arrested under section 302/364/34, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No. 136, dated 1‑4‑1986 recorded at Police Station, Mughalpura, Lahore, for having coipmitted the murder of his own sister‑in‑law, namely Mst. Mumtaz Begum.

2. Mst. Rasoolan, complainant is mother of Mst. Mumtaz Begum, deceased and mother‑in‑law of. the petitioner. She lodged F.I.R. with police on 1‑4‑1986 alleging that the petitioner visited her house on 27‑3‑1986 at 8‑00 p m. and took his daughter Mst. Mumtaz (deceased) with him on the pretext that she would lit "Chiragh" (indigenous lamps) at the shrine of Madho Lal Hussain and also live with her sister (petitioner's wife) for one or two days. The petitioner allegedly visited her again on 29‑3‑1986. and when she inquired about Mst. Mumtaz Begum, the petitioner told her that she (complainant) should herself bring Mumtaz Begum from his house. At this the complainant went to petitioner's house in his company, but the petitioner leaving her at his house, disappeared. She inquired about Mumtaz Begum from petitioner's wife who told her that Mumtaz Begum had never come to her house. She, therefore, suspected the petitioner to have murdered her because she deceased had refused to marry Akhtar, a cousin of the petitioner about whom later had made this proposal. Initially a case under section 364, P .P.C. was registered and ultimately the challan under section 302, P.P.C. has been put in Court.

3. During investigation, besides the petitioner, Muhammad Akhtar, Ramzan, Muhammad Munir alias Bhola and Khushi Muhammad son of Shahab Din have been arrested. Of them, Muhammad Akhtar, Ramzan and Muhammad Munir alias Bhola have since been allowed bail, but the same relief was declined to the. petitioner, hence this application.

4. According to the prosecution, the evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime is, firstly the extra‑judicial confession allegedly made by him before Muhammad Riaz alias Bhola who was appeared on 23‑4‑1986 before the police and secondly is the last seen evidence, provided by Khalid, Javed and Zubair who were examined on 27‑4‑1986.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that extra‑judicial confession is a weak type of evidence which is not corroborated by any other stronger piece of evidence and that the last seen evidence provided by Khalid, Javed and Zubair P.Ws. who had allegedly seen the deceased going in the company of the petitioner, have appeared before police a month after the occurrence despite the fact that they reside in the same locality where the complainant lived, therefore, this evidence hardly carries any weight, hence there do not exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of committing the offence of murder. Learned State counsel opposed the petition.

6. Having considered the contentions of the parties carefully in the light of the evidence on record, I find that there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime; that three co‑accused of the petitioner have already been released on, bail; that dead body o the deceased has not so far been recovered and that the evidence o extra‑judicial confession and that of "last seen" furnished by the witness with unexplained delay, to my mind do not prima facie furnish reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of committing the offence of murder. Consequently, this petition is allowed and .the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25, 000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Cantt./Duty Magistrate. S. A. Bail allowed.