FAQIR BAKHSH Versus THE STATE

ORDER

These two applications for bail Criminal Miscellaneous No. 529/13 of 1986, by Faqir Bakhsh, Fida Hussain, Abdul Ghaffar and Ghulam Qasim petitioners and No. 555/13 of 1986 by Jamil Ahmed, Hafeez Ullah and Muhammad Bakhsh, petitioners, are in case under section 302/364, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Rukanpur, vide F.I.R. No. 145/85, dated 21‑11‑1985. I propose to dispose the same through single order.

2. The prosecution case is that the seven petitioners abducted Ghulam Yaseen, in order to murder him and thereafter killed him in the area of Sardar Garh.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no eye‑witness of the occurrence and the evidence collected by the police during investigation fully conclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the petitioners. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that there is no eye‑witness of the occurrence. The police collected evidence of extra‑judicial confession of Jamil Ahmed, Hafeez Ullah and Muhammad Bakhsh, petitioners before Rahim Bakhsh and Moulin P.Ws. The police also collected evidence of last seen of the deceased with Faqir Bakhsh, Fida Hussain, Abdul Ghaffar, and Ghulam Qasim petitioners. There is also evidence of motive. furnished by Rahim Bakhsh and Moulin P.Ws. It is thus, very much obvious that so far as Hafeez Ullah, Jameel Ahmed and Muhammad Bakhsh petitioners are concerned, the entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of extra‑judicial confession made by them before Rahim Bakhsh and Moulin P.Ws. which appears to be joint one. The witnesses have stated:‑

As for the rest of the petitioners, the only evidence against them is that of last seen, given by Hazarou Khan and Abdul Ghaffar P.Ws. who stated that they had seen the deceased with Faqir Bakhsh, Fida Hussain, Abdul Ghaffar and Ghulam Qasim petitioners at a bus stop. It may be noted that no incriminating recovery has been effected from the petitioners.

5. For what has been found above, without making any expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that the question of the innocence or guilt of the petitioners needs further inquiry. They are, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan.

S.A./F‑53/L Bail ‑ranted.