HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition. The petitioner, namely, Muhammad Mushtaq Ali seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,93 of 2005 dated 23-6-2005 registered at Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan, under sections 302, 364, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Sher, S.-I.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that Mst. Tasneem daughter of Wahid Bukhsh got registered case vide F.I.R. No,93 of 2005 dated 23-6-2005 at Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan under section 364, P.P.C. About the disappearance of his son, namely, Raja Moazzam. The complainant lady remained in search of her son. During this search, she received a parcel in the name of his son, namely, Raja Moazzam from one Mst. Maha daughter of Khan Muhammad Bugti, which unfolded the story about affair of Mst. Maha with Raja Moazzam son of complainant. Mst. Maha disclosed in her letter that her, brother, Shoukat and Mushtaq had come to know about her affair with Raja Moazzam and she has been mercilessly beaten by her brother that his life is also in danger. She advised him to take care of his life. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That after receipt of the said parcel from Mst. Maha the complainant established contact with Shaukat and Mushtaq. The complainant firstly got registered Rapt on 20-6-2005 regarding the missing of his son, namely, Raja Moazzam under section 364, P.P.C. On the suspicion that her son was abducted for the intention to kill by the accused. Firstly Mst. Tasneem Malik, mother of the abductee suspected that petitioner had abducted her son and later on, killed her son. Mst. Tasneem Bibi, vide Diary No,78 recorded her statement on 5-3-2007 with regard to extra-judicial confession made by Mumtaz Bibi co-accused in presence of other witnesses. F.I.R. Was recorded on 23-6-2005 such a belated supplementary statement and such a belated extra-judicial confessions. Have no evidentiary value, sections 302 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. Were added in the. F.I.R. Dated 23-6-2005 which was earlier registered under section 364, P.P.C. The petitioner, Muhammad Mushtaq Ali son of Khan Muhammad seeks post- arrest bail in the said F.I.R.
3. Petitioner's counsel submits that the other co-accused, namely Muhammad Anwar was granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1355/B of 2008 vide order dated 13-1-2009. The petitioner's case is similar and identical of co-accused Muhammad Anwar, under the principal of consistency, petitioner is also entitled for post-arrest bail; further contends that the whole case of the prosecution complainant revolves around the extra-judicial confession made by co-accused, namely, Mumtaz Mai wife of Khan Muhammad Bugti, who made extra judicial confession on 26-2- 2009 before Ayoub, Javed and Muhammad Karma, witnesses, after lapse, of near about four years; further contends that the said extra-judicial confession is not corroborated by any independent witness; that it is a case of unseen occurrence, no eye-witnesses are mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23-6-2005; that there is no ocular witnesses of this case; that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence on the basis of which there are remotest chances of conviction and on the sole basis of extra-judicial confession evidence which is much belated and delayed, further that also of one co-accused against the other.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that challan has been submitted in the trial Court. The co-accused are proclaimed offender, there are strong chances if the petitioner is allowed bail, he will run away and he will not appear before the trial Court. He is a history sheeter.
During the arguments the learned counsel for the complainant consciously mentioned the name of one of the most powerful intelligence agency of the country and he also took over the name of one of the Provincial Chief Minister, perhaps, he was trying to establish that the said Agency and Chief Minster had played their role in the arrest of the accused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly in the beginning case under section 364, P.P.C. Was got registered on the suspicion of abduction of Raja Mozzam by the accused-party on the complaint of his mother namely, Mst.
Tasneem Malik. After long passage of time, petitioner and others were implicated on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by Mst. Mumtaz Mai co-accused. Later on, sections 302, 148,149, P.P.C. Were added.
7. It is settled principle of law that statement of one co-accused cannot be used against the other co-accused. Extra judicial confession is also considered a weak type of evidence even in the present case dead body is not recovered. That prosecution witnesses before whom the accused allegedly made extra-judicial confession does not figure in the FIR., there are remotest chances of the conviction of the accused on the basis or extra-judicial confession. In such-like cases, concession of bail cannot he withheld as a punishment. Submission of challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. Before the learned trial Court is not obstacle in granting the bail, if case for grant of bail is made out otherwise. In this regard reliance can safely be made to 2007 SCM R 1178 and PLD 1989 SC
585. The case of bail is made out otherwise under the principle of consistency. This Court allowed bail to co-accused, in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1355/B of 2008 vide order dated 13-1-2009 at Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan. The case of the petitioner is quite same and identical with Muhammad Anwar, co-accused. I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for grant of post-arrest bail in the light of above discussion.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with two surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, it is made clear that the observations made above are of tentative nature, will not prejudice the merits of the case.