1. ORDER MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicant is booked in Crime No.108 of 2007 registered with Police Station, Muhabatdero, for offences under second conditions 302, 201, 34 P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the case, as stated in the F.I.R. Is that the one Muhammad Nawaz, relative of complainant, for construction of his house, had borrowed Rs. 35.000 from complainant's brother Ali Muhammad.
3. After few days, the brother of complainant asked said Muhammad Nawaz for return of his money, on which he became annoyed. On 24-10-2007, at the sun-set time, the complainant, his relatives Ghulam Nabi and Niaz were returning to village, and on reaching Haji Nasrullah Ji Mori they met the brother of complainant who was coming along with Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Qasim and Habibullah. The brother of complainant stated himself to be going to collect his borrowed money, and thereafter, the said brother of complainant did not return. On 30-10-2007 the Police found a dead body which was identified to be of complainant's brother. Therefore, the present F.I.R. Was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is an unseen incident and other co-accused have already been admitted to bail by the trial Court but the present applicant has been denied bail on the ground that he has already made a confessional statement and has confessed the guilt.
5. Learned counsel further says that about four years have been passed and trial has not been concluded and it is a case of hardship and on this ground alone, the applicant is entitled to bail.
6. Learned counsel further says that confessional statement on the basis of which the prosecution is relying upon was recorded after delay of 9 days, which has not been explained, through the applicant was in custody.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant has confessed the guilt himself before the Magistrate in accordance with law and on his solitary confession, the applicant can be convicted. On the point of hardship, he says that a number of adjournments have been sought by the applicant's side hence, he is not entitled to the indulgence by considering hardship. He relied upon Majeed versus the State (2010 SCM R 55).
8. Learned A.P.-G., further says that other co-accused who were granted bail by the trial Court their names were not mentioned in F.I.R. And no role was assigned to them. He has mainly relied upon the confessional statement of the present applicant. In the end, he says that an innocent person has died in this case and the case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, hence the applicant is not entitled to bail. He further says that adjournments have been sought by the applicant and be cannot take advantage of his on wrong.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record as the case-law cited at the bar.
10. It is admitted position that other co-accused have already been admitted to bail. It is also admitted position that incident is unseen and it is also admitted position that about fours years have passed but the trial has not been concluded. It is right of every citizen to get speedy justice but due to delay in trial, the present applicant is behind the bar. He cannot be kept behind the bar on the anticipation that tomorrow he should be convicted by the Court.
11. I have examined the alleged confessional statement, wherein present applicant admits his presence at the scene. However, he has specifically stated that Muhammad Juman has made firing and due to firing of Muhammad Juman, deceased Ali Muhammad died. He further says in the alleged confessional statement that dead body was suppressed by the present applicant along with other co-accused persons but they have already been admitted to bail. In my view, the present applicant is also to similar treatment. It is settled law that delay per se is not a ground for grant of bail but when the delay is scandalous the indulgence is to be shown by the Court. On examination a confessional statement, it is apparent- that killing of deceased Ali Muhammad can be attributed to the present applicant. At the best, he can be charged for the offence under section 201, P.P.C. Which is bailable. The Judgment cited by learned A.P.-G. Is distinguishable on facts and it relates to appeal, hence rule laid down in the said judgment does not apply to the present case. In my view, this is a fit case in which further enquiry in terms of subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is called for.
12. Accordingly, I admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lac) and execution of Personal Bonds in the like Court.
13. Amount to the satisfaction of the ]