2005 PLP 468 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/392/34‑-‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Occurrence had taken place during night time and according to F.I. R. itself alleged murder had remained un-witnessed‑‑‑No culprit had been nominated in F.I.R.‑‑‑No direct evidence was available in the case positively incriminating accused in alleged murder and robbery‑‑‑Prosecution was mainly relying upon a confession allegedly made by accused before police and a recovery of a motor cycle from custody of accused during investigation of case‑‑‑Confession made by an accused during his custody with police, was inadmissible in evidence‑‑ Motor cycle allegedly recovered from possession of accused during investigation did not belong to the deceased‑‑‑Worth and evidentiary value of such recovery would be gone into by Trial Court at the time of trial and same called for further probe ‑‑‑Co‑accused had already been admitted to post‑arrest bail and case against said co‑accused was not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against accused so far as merits of case were concerned‑‑‑No reason was shown as to why accused could not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as said co‑accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Aftab Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner. Badar Munir Malik for the State. Date of hearing: 9th March, 2004. Through this petition Ameer Ali petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. ‑No.45 registered at Police Station Green Town, Lahore on 25‑1‑2003 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 392 and 34, P.P.C. were added to the F. I. R.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during night and according to the F.I.R. itself the alleged murder had remained un-witnessed. No culprit had been nominated in the F.I.R. It is not disputed that there is no direct evidence available, in this case positively incriminating the petitioner in the alleged murder and robbery and the prosecution is mainly relying upon a confession allegedly made by the petitioner before the police and a recovery of a motorcycle from his custody during the investigation of this case. It goes without saying that a confession made by an accused person during his custody with the police is inadmissible in evidence. The motorcycle allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation did not belong to the deceased. The worth and evidentiary value of such a recovery shall be gone into by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial and the same surely calls for further probe at this stage. A co‑accused of the petitioner namely Mst. Shakeela Bibi has already been admitted to post -arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 24‑11‑2003. passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7048‑B of 2003. It is not denied that the case against the said co‑accused is not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against the present petitioner as far as the merits of the case are concerned. There is, thus, no reason why the petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co‑accused. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A‑260/L Bail granted.