MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Ayub complainant who is a Rickshaw driver, reported at Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala, on 13‑2‑1986, that on the preceding night his Rickshaw was hired by three young men (whose description is given in the F.I.R.) for taking them to Chah Peoplanwala Noshera Road. He took them to the said destination. He asked them to pay Rs.10 as fare. At this, one of the culprits took out revolver from his Dub and placed it at his neck, the other took out a Khanjar and forcibly took out Rs.250 from his pocket and the third culprit who was armed with a Sua, forcibly took away his wrist watch and then threatened him to run away without making noise. Muhammad Ayub then came to the place from where he had picked up aforesaid, culprits as passengers and narrated this incident to one Muhammad Ayub who told him that the culprits were Muhammad Ilyas petitioner, Ashiq and Sabir Hussain, The complainant also stated in the F.I.R. that he can identify the culprits, if shown to him. A case was registered under section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and investigated. On 14‑2‑1986 Muhammad Ayub and Hamid Ullah P.Ws appeared before the Investigating Officer and produced a sum of Rs.250 saying that Muhammad Ilyas petitioner having confessed his guilt had given them a sum of Rs.250 for handing over to the police. At this the petitioner was arrested on 17‑2‑1986 and since then he is in jail. It is stated that the trial has not so far commenced. The petitioner's plea for bail was declined by the lower Court, who, therefore, has moved the instant petition in this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the state and perused the record.

3. No doubt, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but this name was told the complainant by one Ayub. The complainant though expressed that he would be able to identify the culprits, if shown to him, yet the petitioner or his co‑accused were not arrayed in test identification parade for being identified by the complainant. The recovery of Rs.250 has not been effected directly from the petitioner. This amount has been produced before the Investigating Officer by Hamid Ullah and Ayub. Extra-judicial confession is always treated as weakest type of evidence.

4. In view of the facts narrated above without expressing any opinion on merits, in the circumstances of the case I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.

S. A.

Bail allowed.