' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,922, dated 22-9-2011, under sections 364 (sections 302, 201, 109, 34 P.P.C. Added during the course of investigation), registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. Precisely the prosecution case as narrated by Zulfiqar Ali (complainant) is that his brother Irfan, having parked his vehicle went towards the house of Talib Hussain (petitioner) and did not return for a considerable period of time which caused concern to him; Mst.Razia Bibi (wife of Ghulam Mustafa) who went to the house of Talib Hussain found one of the rooms of his house closed and she also heard some hubbub therefrom; she returned and informed the complainant about the aforesaid fact; Sardar Ali, father of the complainant got lodged a rapat at the police -station in respect of disappearance of his son Irfan; someone aboard a gray colour car had also visited the house of Talib Hussain (petitioner) on the said day; Adeel and Qurban saw some unknown persons along with a driver leaving the spot; a punchayat was convened and participants thereof interrogated Talib Hussain (petitioner) who after a few hiccups promised that the abductee would be returned soon; the accused thereafter fled their houses; the complainant raised suspicion that his brother had been abducted by accused Talib Hussain (petitioner), Islam, an unknown guest of Talib Hussain, driver of Car No,7778 and Mst.Tasleem Bibi, the daughter of the petitioner. The motive behind the occurrence was that Talib Hussain suspected Irfan (deceased) of an illicit liaison with his daughter and due to this grudge, he along with others abducted him.
3. One Faqir Hussain was arrested on 22-12-2011 who led to the recovery of an iron box from underneath a heap of cow-dung which was packed with the dead body of Irfan deceased. This place was situated close to the outer wall of the house of the petitioner. The recovery memo qua the dead body was attested by Zulfiqar and Ej az A . S . -I. Mst.Razia Bibi joined investigation on 22- 11-2011 and endorsed the version of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R. Whereas Qurban and Adeel in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Recorded on the same day stated that Irfan had been abducted by the accused-petitioner and his co-accused. Two witnesses namely Muhammad Nazir and Muhammad Ashraf were produced by the complainant on 12-11-2011 who contended before the I.O. That Talib Hussain (petitioner) had given a word to the participants of a punchayat that he would return the abductee in due course of time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and his case calls for further probe into his guilty as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that accused-petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence and he had disposed of the abductee in the backdrop of an illicit relationship between his daughter and Irfan deceased; the petitioner had admitted his guilt before a punchayat and promised to return the abductee/deceased but he chewed his words and murdered him; the offence committed by the petitioner is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., hence he may not be granted the relief prayed for.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that allegation against the petitioner is vague inasmuch as no evidence exists on record to establish that Irfan (deceased) had ever entered the house of the deceased' or he had been seen in the company of the accused at any stage till the recovery of his dead body. Mere fact that the dead body of the deceased was got recovered by Faqir Hussain accused from a place not far-off from the house of the accused cannot be considered a ground to connect the petitioner for commission of the crime. The I.O. After extensive investigation recorded a finding that the accused petitioner was guilty only for the offence of screening of evidence punishable under section 201, P.P.C. The statements of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Nazir, the witnesses of extra-judicial confession do not reveal as to when and where the petitioner' had admitted his guilt before the participants of the punchayat. The extra-judicial confession of an accused is the weakest type of evidence which can be easily procured by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence does not come their way. The statements of Adeel and Qurban do not reveal much against the petitioner so far as the murder of lrfan (deceased) is concerned. There is another very important circumstance which relates to reporting of matter to the police through Rapat No,12, dated 19-9-2011 by the father of the deceased, the text whereof is entirely different from the story of the F.I.R., which has been got lodged by the real brother of the deceased who also happens to be the son of Sardar Ali, the informer of Rapat No,12 (supra). Important enough, petitioner's name does not figure anywhere in the said rapat. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that petitioner's case is fully covered by section 497(2), Cr .P.C. Therefore, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.