JAHANGIR and others vs THE STATE

ORDER

' The petitioners and another were proceeded against vide F.I.R. No,345/94 under section 302/337/364, P.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Bahawalpur, for the alleged murder of Muhammad Naeem, a son of the complainant.

2. The prosecution story given in the F.I.R. Briefly stated is that on the fateful day at about 10-00 a.m., Muhammad Naeem deceased left the house with the petitioners and did not return till evening. At about 6-00 p.m. Mst. Saeeda Begum, widow of Maulvi Abdur Rehman, reached complainant's house to inform that his son (Muhammad Naeem) was lying at her house. The complainant accompanied by others went there to find that his son was lying unconscious and some bluish matter was coming out of his mouth. Muhammad Naeem (deceased) was immediately hospitalised but he breathed his last in the causally department.

3. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioners Jahangir, Muhammad Babar and Luqman had killed Muhammad Naeem with the assistance of Abdur Rehman and Riaz. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. Is that few days prior to the occurrence in question, Mst. Qamar Jahan, a daughter of Alamgir and sister of Jahangir and Baber (petitioners) had run away and her parents suspected that Muhammad Naeem (deceased) was involved in the said incident.

4. During investigation, the police collected the following set of evidence against the petitioners:--

(i) Evidence of last seen;

(ii) evidence of extra-judicial confession furnished by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Azam (a real brother of the complainant) who stated that the petitioners had made extra-judicial confession before them that they had murdered Muhammad Naeem;

(iii) the report of the Chemical Examiner qua the stomach contents of Muhammad Naeem which was to the effect that it contained organo phosphorous insecticide.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail on the grounds that there was no direct evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged offence; that the so-called extra-judicial confession made before Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Azam was joint and it even otherwise repellent to common sense as petitioners could not have gone and made extra-judicial confession before real brothers of the complainant. It was further argued that the petitioners were behind the bar for the last more than ten months and the trial is not yet in sight. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on Muhammad Ishaq and 3 others v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 2426 and Shaukat v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 696.

6. The learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail by submitting that the evidence of last seen, extra-judicial confession and the report of the chemical examiner do prima facie connect the petitioners with the alleged offence and they would not be released on bail at this stage.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.

8. Admittedly there is no direct evidence as to who and how the insecticide was administered to Muhammad Naeem deceased. The evidence of "last seen" and of "extra-judicial confession" remains to be evaluated during the trial as the petitioners were admittedly on visiting terms with Muhammad Naeem deceased (who was a chronic drug addict as per the Investigating Officer) and his leaving the house with the petitioners on the fateful day was not unusual. The witnesses of 'extra-judicial confession' are real brothers of the complainant and prima facie the prosecution shall have to attend to the question as to why the petitioners should go to a very close relation of the complainant to make the alleged confession and the value of joint 'extrajudicial confession' shall also be weighed during the trial.

' In Shaukat v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 696, this Court allowed bail to an accused who alleged administered insecticide to the deceased in Lassi as there was no direct evidence qua the mixing of insecticide in the Lassi and the prosecution case basically hinged on the evidence of last seen, motive and the extra-judicial confession.

' Similarly in Muhammad Ishaq and 3 others v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 2426, the evidence of last seen and joint extra-judicial confession was, prima facie, found to be of no value and the accused was released on bail on double murder charge.

9. For afore-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the question of petitioners' guilt would warrant further inquiry and until sufficient evidence is collected and produced before a Court of law which is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused petitioners they are entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, petitioners Jahangir, Muhammad Babar and Luqman are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.