MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem petitioner has moved this application for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.88 of 1996 registered on 14‑3‑1996 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Arifwala, District Pakpattan.

2. The prosecution case is that on 14‑2‑1996 in the night at about 3‑15 a.m. made statement to the effect that at about 8‑00 p.m. on 13‑2‑1996 Muhammad Saleem petitioner called out Yaqoob from his house in Chak No. 155/EB where both reside at the same Dera, telling him that they were to go to Chak No. 143/EB for some job. He was also accompanied by three unknown persons. His brother (Yaqoob deceased) told him that he was not feeling well and could not accompany him. Insisted upon by Muhammad Saleem petitioner, the deceased accompanied him towards Chak No. 143/EB. Subsequently, Rana Falak Sher son of Bootay Khan came to him at 2‑00 a.m. and intimated that his brother had been fired at and his dead body had been taken to Arifwala. He intimated his brother Nosher, Shaukat Ali and his nephew Liaqat Ali. All of them accompanied him there. After registration of the cases during the investigation it was revealed through' extra judicial confession that Muhammad Saleem had murdered Yaqoob deceased as the latter had abused him at some occasion. The extra‑judicial confession by the petitioner had been made before Falak Sher, Rana Tasawar and Ali and Mal Din. . Falak Sher was also subsequently made an accused. During the investigation the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the canal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Dissatisfied with the result of the investigation, the complainant has also lodged a private complaint under section 302, P.P.C. against Muhammad Saleem and three others alleging that the deceased was seen to have been murdered by the accused mentioned therein. In view of the above circumstances, there are three versions put forth by the prosecution with respect to its case, and thus, it is a case of further enquiry as to what extent the petitioner is responsible for murder of Yaqoob deceased. In this behalf reliance is placed on Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1981 Law Notes Lah. 792. Further, the evidence collected by the prosecution is that of extra judicial confession and the last‑seen evidence, both of which are weak ones. The culprits against whom prosecution could procure the evidence of the nature as mentioned above, were held entitled to the grant of bail in view of Mst. Naziran v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1630. The accused was arrested soon after the registration of the case and since then he is in judicial lock‑up. For the reasons the petitioner is held entitled to bail.

5. Resultantly, the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Arifwala.

H. B. T./M‑521 /L Bail granted.