' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,200/01, dated 2-7-2004 for offences under sections 302/ 34/109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ghaziabad District Sahiwal.
' Brief facts of the case are that the complainant along with his son went to his cotton field where he discovered two dead-bodies of unknown persons and the matter was reported to the police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had no link or connection with the offence of murder of the said two persons who were later identified as Qamar-uz-Zaman and Sarfraz; that the petitioner was involved on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant on 27-3-2005 i.e, approximately nine months after the occurrence and even in the said statement no motive was assigned to the petitioner; that the only evidence against the petitioner was of extra-judicial confession allegedly made. On 27-3-2005 before a Punchayat; that the petitioner was declared innocent by the Investigating Officer and subsequently by the S.H.O.
Who verified the investigation, hence the case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry; and that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Ijaz Ahmad had already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 31-5-2006 hence, under the law of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the motorcycle belonging to Sarfraz deceased was recovered from the possession of the co-accused of the petitioner which prima facie connected him with the commission of offence of murder of Sarfraz; that apart from last seen evidence the petitioner had also made an extra-judidal confession before a Punchayat; that the weapon of offence Sota had also been recovered from the petitioner and since the challan had been submitted in the Trial Court as such the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This is a case of blind murder of two deceased namely Sarfraz and Qamaruz-Zaman. The petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. Nor any role has been assigned to him. The only evidence against the petitioner is of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him on 27-3-2005 i.e, after a laps of about nine months from the, date of occurrence and the same being weak evidence not much reliance can be placed on the same. The petitioner was nominated only on the basis of a supplementary statement made by the father of deceased Qamar-uz-Zaman on 27-3-2005. There is no direct evidence of A the petitioner having taken part in the murders of the deceased. The Sota alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is of no consequence as there are no blunt weapon injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased. No motive has been ascribed by the complainant in the supplementary statement against the petitioner for the alleged murder of Qamar -uz-Zaman deceased. Further the petitioner has been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer as well as the S.H.O. Who verified the investigation. In the challan submitted before the learned Trial Court the name of the petitioner was not mentioned therein however, subsequently the petitioner was summoned by the Court to stand trial and was arrested on 24-2- 2006. The co-accused of the petitioner was granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 31-5-2006 and keeping in view the law of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
7. For what has been discussed above the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry.
Resultantly, he is allowed bail B subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.