2004 P Cr (PLP)

M. Asghar Rokhri for Petitioners. Muhammad Ameer Khan Niazi for the Complainant. Ilyas Ghummat for the State. This is bail after‑arrest application in case F.I.R. No.63 of 2001, dated 17‑4‑2001, under sections 302/201 /34, P. P. C. of Police Station Noorpur, District Khushab.

2. According to the prosecution allegations set out in the F.I.R. lodged by Sher Alam Khan complainant .on 15‑4‑2001, his son Asmatullah Khan aged 19/20 years left his house for Isha prayer and thereafter he did not return home. A search was conducted and then on 17‑4‑2001 at 8‑00 a.m. the dead body of Asmatullah Khan was found lying within the precinct of Government Degree College of Noorpur and consequently the, complainant, lodged this F.I.R. by alleging that some unknown assailants had murdered his son and had thrown his dead body in a dry well.

3. Initially the investigations in this case were conducted and this case was filed as untraced. The petitioners had earlier been joined in the police investigations by various Police Officers and they were found to be not involved in the occurrence. However, on 29‑7‑2003 Shafqat Ullah, D.S.P. recorded statements of four P.Ws. namely Khurshid, Ghulam Muhammad Ghulam Qadir and Majeed, who all stated that about 9/10 months ago, the petitioners came to them and confessed to have killed Asmat Ullah Khan deceased on account of some monetary dispute and thereafter on 28‑7‑2003 Ghulam Jafar and Nasrullah P.Ws. stated before the police that they had taped extra‑judicial confession of Muhammad Naeem petitioner that he alongwith remaining petitioners had killed Asmatullah Khan deceased on account of some monetary transaction.

4. The only incriminating material against the, petitioners is their extra‑judicial confession made before the P.Ws. about one and half years after the occurrence and then the said P.Ws. remained quiet for almost ten months and did not report about the said fact to the police and revealed the said extra‑judicial confession before the police after ten months. Prima facie, there was no necessity on the part of the petitioners to go to the P. Ws. and to make the extra‑judicial confession after the delay of one and a half years and then if any such extra‑judicial confession had been made before the P. Ws. then it was highly improbable that they would keep quiet‑for 10 months. Therefore, the evidence linking the petitioner with the occurrence is tainted one and makes the case of the petitioner a matter of further inquiry. As such, they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. The observation of this Court in this case is of tentative nature and will not prejudice the proceedings of the trial Court. N.H.Q./H‑187/L Bail allowed.