SAEED AHMAD Versus State

ORDER

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner Saeed Ahmed seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.56 dated 2-2-2011 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Rahimyarkhan with the allegation that the petitioner along with his co-accused committed the murder of deceased, hence this F.I.R.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in the case with mala fide intention of the police. He is not nominated in the F.I.R. but the petitioner has been involved in the case vide supplementary statement dated 24-2-2011. The facts and circumstances of the case made it a case of further inquiry.

3. Learned DPG has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the petitioner committed heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. Admittedly, The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and subsequently he was involved in the case vide statement dated 24-2-2011 made under section 161, Cr.P.C. by Raja Shahzad Mahmood and Raja Faisal Mahmood before the police, who have stated that the petitioner made extra-judicial confessional statement before them that the petitioner and his co-accused Ghulam Farid committed the murder of deceased. The possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Extra-judicial confession without cogent corroboration is not enough to bring case within purview of prohibitory clause to disentitle for concession of bail. Reliance is placed on Ahmad Jamal v. State (PLD 1996 Lah. 261). Criminal law is based on the dictum that every one is innocent unless proved guilty by the court. Police may collect incriminating material against the accused during the course of investigation but presumption of innocence still remains in favour of accused, unless he is tried, convicted and sentenced by a competent court. Even otherwise release of an accused person on bail does not amount to his acquittal but his judicial custody is transferred to a private person who is bound to produce the accused person before the court. The facts and circumstances of the case make it a case of further inquiry. Law is not to be stretched in favour of prosecution Benefit of doubt will go to the accused even at bail stage. Reliance is placed on Hafiz Maulvi Muhammad Fazal Haque and another v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 2392). In a case falling within the prohibitory clause an accused is entitled to the concession of bail if his case comes within purview of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on Mahmood Akhtar v. The State (1999 MLD 1206). Co-accused of the petitioner is already on bail. The accused is behind the bars since 25-2-2011 and keeping him, behind the bars for an indefinite period will not serve or advance the prosecution case.

For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

M.W.A./S-69/L Bail granted.