1986 P Cr (PLP)

Sh. Ghulam Sabir Niazi for Applicants. A.A. Mohammadally, A.A.‑G. for the State. The two applicants Omer Katchi and Muhammad Katchi are being tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi for offence under section 302, P.P.C. for having committed murder of one Ismail. The report of this incident was lodged by one Siddique s/o Abbas on 30‑11‑1980 at 11‑20‑a.m. at Chakiwara Police Station to the effect that he and Yousuf had found the dead body of Ismail lying in his house. The police started investigation, but for more than three years no clue could be found as to the culprits. On 23‑12‑1983 the two applicants were arrested by police of different Police Stations for having been found in possession of unlicensed arms. It transpired during interrogation of these applicants that they are connected with this murder. On 1‑1‑1984 i.e. after eight days of the arrest of the applicants, one of them namely, Omar Katchi was produced by the police before Mr. Lila Ram A.C.M. for confession. Omar Katchi is alleged to have confessed his land in this murder and inculpated himself as well as co-accused Muhammad Katchi in this crime. Almost all the material witnesses including Mr. Lila Ram A.C.M. have been examined. So far as applicant Muhammad Katchi is concerned no witness had deposed anything against him. Thus there is no evidence against Muhammad Katchi except that Omar Katchi had named him as culprit alongwith him in this crime in his confession. So far as Omer Katchi is concerned, there is nothing on record except the uncorroborated confession from which he has retracted. No reason has been assigned by the police as to why Omar Katchi was produced for confession after A eight (8) days of his arrest. It is on record that during all this period he remained in police custody. The circumstances under which the confession was recorded have reduced the evidentiary value of the uncorroborated and retracted confession. In view of the above circumstances Mr. A. Muhammadally have not objected to grant of bail to the applicants. As there is no evidence against the applicants except the uncorroborated retracted confession, which was recorded under the circumstances stated above, the applicants are entitled to bail. The application is allowed. Both the applicants shall be released on furnishing sureties in the amount of Rs.20,000 and P.R. in like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It may be clarified that the observations made above in respect of the merit of the case are tentative in nature and have been made for the purpose of deciding only the question of bail, which shall not prejudice the learned trial Court in coming to an independent conclusion about the actual offences committed by the applicant. It is further observed that if any further evidence comes on record connecting the applicants with this crime, the trial Court shall be fully at liberty to cancel the bail. S.A. Bail accepted