GHULAM MURTAZA Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner seeks bail in case F. I. R. No: 561, dated 17‑12‑1997, under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Noor Shah, District Sahiwal.

2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant has lodged an F.I.R., alleging therein that his son Muhammad Pervaiz alias Muhammad Nawaz was running a grocery shop. On eventful day at 5‑00 p.m., he left his son/deceased in the shop and came in his house: At Isha time when he again went in his shop he found that the shop was ' locked and he returned back. After long waiting when Muhammad Pervaiz (his son) did not return back in his house, they searched him from here and there. Subsequently, the complainant alongwith Manzoor Ahmed etc., reached in the crop of potatoes owned by Noor son of Muhammad, where they saw a tale of blood, Entering into the sugarcane crop, they found a lot of blood, thereafter, they followed blood tale which ended near the bank of river. Manzoor Ahmad and Alia entered into the river and found a heavy bag. When it was opened, dead body of son of the complainant was found from it.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I. R., nor description of the accused person has been narrated in the F.I.R.; that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused person with the commission of the offence has been collected by the Investigating Officer; that according to the prosecution after a period of two years, an extra judicial confession was made before one Sikandar and Mst. Azra by the petitioner and two other co‑accused; that it was a joint confession by all the three accused persons which is not admissible in law; that it is the weakest evidence; that the petitioner hat been involved in the case on the statement of Mst. Azra who has stated that the petitioner wanted to marry her and he has been forcing her to get divorce from her deceased husband. On her refusal, he has murdered her husband that this statement was made after two years of the occurrence and she remained silent, reasons best known to her. Learned counsel lastly contended that it is a case of further inquiry and other co‑accused has been released on bail, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, and contended that there is an extra‑judicial confession by the accused before Mst. Azra and Sikandar P.Ws. The investigation of the case is complete and challan is ready for submission to the Court.

5. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R., and he has been arrested in the case after about more than two years. No direct evidence is available against the petitioner. The guilt of the accused is yet, to be determined by the Court after according of evidence of P.Ws., therefore, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry.

6. In these circumstances, without prejudicing the merits of the case, I accept this bail application. The petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

H.B.T./G‑27/L

Bail granted.