2005 PLP 570 (MLD)

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 9‑10‑1996 at about 3‑00 a.m. the petitioner and others, while armed with .30 bore pistols, during the course of the dacoity in the house of the complainant had committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of his deceased nephew Sarfraz and also took away the motorcycle belonging to them from the courtyard there.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has appeared that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The complainant in the same has not laid suspicion of the commission of the offence against anyone. He, however, on 21‑10‑1996 has made supplementary statement before the police and in the same has mentioned that one Zafar Ali can give some information about the occurrence.

4. The record has also revealed that said Zafar Ali was joined in the investigation but he ultimately was discharged in the case as no intended clue could be had from him.

5. It has also been found that the complainant has made an application to the S.H.O. concerned to the effect that one Iftikhar Ahmad has sent him message that he has information about the murder of the deceased and thereupon he along with other met him in the jail, who told them that one Ashiq, Ali has furnished the information of the occurrence Further according to the same, he along with his brother Abdul Ghafoor and Nisar Ahmad met Ashiq Ali in District Jail, Jhang on 21‑3‑2003 who disclosed before them that he along with the petitioner and other have committed the said offence.

6. It, however, has appeared from his said application that the petitioner during the commission of the alleged offence has not done anything except that he had remained standing outside the house of the complainant to guard his companions. Anyway, this, story, has come to the surface after about 8 years of the occurrence. He in the same has not been attributed any act qua the deceased.

7. It has also been found from the record that on 10‑3‑2004, two persons' namely Abad Ali and Mukhtar Ahmad have made statement before the police that the petitioner has confessed his guilt before them

8. This alleged extra‑judicial confession of him, thus was more than 7 years after the incident.

9. The evidentiary value of his such belated alleged extra‑judicial confession needs serious consideration.

10. All such facts makes his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

11. He is behind the bars. Although he was arrested about four months ago but his case when has been found to be one of further inquiry into his guilt, he then is entitled to bail as of right and not of grace and in such circumstances, can't be detained for a moment even unnecessarily.

12. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

13. It is, however, clarified here that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of learned trial Court in any manner. H.B.T./T‑63/L Bail granted.