NAZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Nazar Hussain petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,510, dated 30-10-2007 registered under sections 302/ 34/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Shedani Sharif District Rahimyar Khan on the application of Manzoor Ahmad.

2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. Is that on 28-10-2007 at about 8-00 p.m. The complainant's brother Jan Muhammad and his son Muhammad Iqbal aged about 10/12 went to the house of Faqir Bakhsh (-his neighbourer) for seeing T.V. At 12-00 (midnight) the complainant's son came back and he asked his son where is Jan Muhammad who told that he had gone to his house. On 29-10- 2007 at about 7-00 p.m. Mst. Shamoon Mai wife of Jan Muhammad came to the house of the complainant and told that said Jan Muhammad did not come to home. The complainant and Mst.

Shamoon Mai searched for Jan Muhammad but he could not be traced out. On 30-10-2007 the complainant along with Hazoor Bakhsh, Abdul Shakoor along with other persons while entered in the land of Muhammad Akram Jat and saw that the complainant's brother had been murdered who received fire-arm on his head which crossed through and through.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And has been subsequently involved in this case on the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant. Further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant and only evidence collected by the prosecution against him is joint extra-judicial confession, last-seen and recovery of pistol which is not believable. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 28-11-2007 and is not required for the purpose of investigation.

4. Learned D.P.-G. On the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner has been involved on the basis of supplementary statement and there is evidence of extra-judicial confession, last-seen and recovery of pistol which is sufficient to connect him with the offence and in the presence of the above said evidence against the petitioner he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with the assistance of the learned D.P.-G. It shows that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. He was subsequently, involved along with his co-accused through the supplementary statement which was recorded on 1-11-2007 by the complainant. According to the supplementary statement of the complainant and the witnesses the petitioner and his co-accused confessed their guilt before the complainant, Mashooq Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad and Noor Ahmad. The statements of these above said witnesses show that all the accused confessed their guilt jointly before the above said P.Ws. Which is not admissible in evidence. The remaining evidence which is last-seen and recovery of pistol prima facie is not sufficient at this stage to establish any offence against the petitioner. Keeping in view this evidence case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.