1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of applicant/accused Nazir Ahmed son of Ghulam Sarwar Bhutto who is detained in case F.I.R. No,104/2007 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Ratodero.
2. 'Brief facts of the case are that on 14-7-2007 Muhammad Ramzan Bhutto lodged F.I.R. At aforesaid police station, stating therein that on 11-7-2007 his son Muhammad Hanif aged about 10/11 years went to their land for grazing the goats. That thereafter complainant along with his brother and cousin also went to his land where they saw Muhammad Hanif grazing the goats. Thereafter they came back to their house. At evening time the son of the complainant namely Muhammad Hanif did not come to the house therefore, complainant along with his brother Abdul Rehman and cousin Ali Akbar went to their land in search of his son but Muhammad Hanif was not found present there.
3. However, his chappel were lying there. The complainant and others made private search for missing boy Muhammad Hanif but they did not find any clue. It is further stated that on 12-7-2007 complainant came to know that one dead body is lying at Hakra Bridge. On this he along with his brother Abdul Rehman and cousin Ali Akbar went to the aforenoted place where they saw deed body of his son lying there. Complainant rind others brought the dead body of Muhammad Hanif to Taluka Hospital Ratodero and leaving the dead body at Hospital, he came to police station where he lodged F.I.R. Which was recorded in daily diary and death was shown as accidental one.
4. Thereafter on 14-7-2007 when complainant along with Nazim Rehmatullah, Ali Akbar and so many other persons were present at the funeral ceremony, Nazir Ahmed nephew of complainant came there and disclosed that on 12-7-2008 he and Muhammad Hanif while grazing goats exchanged hot words and thereafter he took deceased Muhammad Hanif and threw him in the Warrah Cannal, where he drowned and died. Hearing this story from accused. Nazir, complainant came at police station and lodged F.I.R. Of the matter. On the same day accused Nazir Ahmed was arrested by the police. Since time of his arrest he is detained in custody.
5. ' Bail application made earlier on behalf of the applicant/accused before the learned trial Court was dismissed on 28-9-2008, hence this bail application.
6. ' Heard Advocate for the applicant/ accused, learned State Counsel and perused the case papers.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused submitted that with regard to the same incident two different versions are available on the record that as per daily diary entry dated 12-7-2007, death of Muhammad Hanif was shown as accidental one. However, subsequently, on the basis of alleged confession made by accused Nazir Ahmed before Nazim Rehmatullah, complainant Muhammad Ramzan and others, present case was registered in which applicant/accused Nazir Ahmed is shown as murderer of boy Muhammad Hanif. Learned counsel further submitted that though there is allegation that accused Nazir Ahmed has made an extra judicial confession before Nazim and others regarding murder of boy Muhammad Hanif but after his extra judicial confession, on arrest of the applicant/accused he was not produced before any Magistrate to record his confessional statement. Had the boy made confessional statement before so many persons on the ground that he feels pricks of the conscious therefore he confessed the guilt, then he was required to be produced before Judicial Magistrate to record his confessional statement. As no confessional statement of accused was got recorded by prosecution, therefore, no implied reliance can be placed upon alleged extra judicial confession. Learned counsel further contained that even otherwise in view of two different narrations given with regard to the happening of the incident in question, the case of applicant/accused also falls within the purview of case of further inquiry and at this stage the applicants/ accused is entitled to be released on bail as he has remained in custody for more than one year. That at no stage his confessional statement was got recorded before any M4gistrate, and the extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. In such like cases, the case of the accused is treated that of further inquiry and the accused is released on bail.
8. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Mir Hazar v. The State reported in 1999 SCM R 1377, wherein it was observed as under:-- "S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Bail--- Name of accused did not originally transpire in the F.I.R. And he was involved subsequently in the commission of the crime---Prosecution in support of its second version had relied upon the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the accused before the prosecution witnesses, which according to his counsel could not be relied upon alone as strong piece of evidence to connect him with the offence and his case required further inquiry---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal in circumstances and the accused was enlarged on bail."
9. ' That except alleged extra judicial confession of the accused the prosecution has not collected any other material to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of this case. He therefore, requested for grant of this bail application and release of the applicant/accused on bail.
10. ' Mr. Muhammad Akram Shaikh, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of State has conceded to the grant of this bail application at this stage.
11. ' I have considered the contentions raised at bar and has also gone through the material made available before me. It is admitted position of the case that two different narrations regarding the same incident are available on the record. According to earlier version of the prosecution case, boy Muhammad Hanif died as accidental death whereas subsequently on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused Nazir Ahmed, this F.I.R. Was lodged on 14-7-2007 in which applicant is shown as a culprit of this case. After arrest of the accused no judicial confession before any Magistrate was got recorded to show that actually such confession was made by the accused.
12. ' In view of the above noted discussion and the principle laid down in the above noted decided case I hold that at this stage, case of the applicant accused falls within the purview of a case of further inquiry and applicant/accused is entitled to the grant of bail. I therefore, allow this bail application and order that applicant/accused be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.