Mahmood Ahmad (petitioner) seeks bail-after-arrest in case-FIR No, 323/2012, dated 31.05.2012, registered for offences under Sections 365-PPC, Sections 302 and 34, PPC (added during the course of investigation), at police station Nishatabad (Faisalabad).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Mansha (complainant) is that his paternal uncle Muhammad Aslam, on receipt of a telephonic call, left his house on 25.05.2012 to meet one Shah Jee but did not return thereafter; he made an attempt to establish contact with him but his cell phone was switched-off; a case might be registered against the unknown accused for having abducted his uncle along with his motorcycle.
3. The complainant moved a written application before the Investigating Officer on 26.12.2012 with the contention that he was informed by Haji Manzoor and Muhammad Mansha son of Saleh, two days earlier that they saw his missing maternal uncle in the company of accused Arshad alias Munna, Saleem alias Jatt, Ghulam Murtaza and Mehmood Ahmad (petitioner) at about 6:00 a.m. on 25.05.2012; the aforesaid accused came back on the same motorcycle but his uncle was not with them; he further stated that Zulfiqar and Mazhar Mehmood told him on 2.06.2012 that accused Arshad alias Munna, Saleem alias Jatt, Ghulam Murtaza and Mehmood Ahmad (petitioner) had - approached them a day earlier and admitted their guilt qua the murder of his maternal uncle by lodging a request that they might be accorded forgiveness by the complainant.
4. Ghulam Murtaza accused disclosed before the police/Investigating Officer on 04.06.2012 that he along with Arshad alias Munna and Muhammad Saleem alias Jatt abducted Muhammad Aslam and committed his murder and that he could lead to the recovery of his dead-body. In line with his disclosure, he got recovered the dead-body of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) from the sewerage pipes of the under-construction Labour Court. The complainant rendered an oral supplementary statement on 25.06.2012 with the assertion that the deceased had received a telephonic call from Mehmood Ahmad (petitioner) on the day of occurrence before he left the house. He rendered another supplementary statement on 17.06.2012 which relates to the disclosure of the accused before the Investigating Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely involved in this case under a conspiracy by the complainant so as to blackmail him; it is case of no evidence against the petitioner and he is innocent.
6. On the other hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that petitioner is well connected with the commission of murder of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) as he had been seen by a team of witnesses going along with his co-accused and the deceased on 25.05.2012; the accused petitioner along with his co-accused admitted their guilt before Zulfiqar and Mazhar, who joined investigation on 02.06.2012 to corroborate the said fact; a call-log was collected by the Investigating Officer which shows that the cell phone of the petitioner was used during the occurrence to call him from his residential house.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing, the record, it is observed that the petitioner's involvement in this case as an accused smacks certain elements of dubiousness which render the prosecution case increasingly hazy and obscure so far as the petitioner's involvement in the murder of Muhammad Aslam is concerned. Ghulam Murtaza accused who got recovered the dead-body of the deceased stated before the Investigating Officer that he along with his co- accused Arshad alias Munna and Saleem alias Jatt had committed the murder of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) whereafter they concealed his dead-body in the sewerage-line of an under- construction building of the Labour A Court. So far as evidence regarding extra judicial confession of the accused is concerned, suffice it to say, it is joint in nature. Further remarks about this particular piece of evidence may cause prejudice to any of the parties at trial, hence, to assess its true evidentiary value, the matter is left for the trial Court to attend to It has been held time and again that the circumstantial evidence, like the one, faced by the petitioner, is the weakest type of evidence, which can be manoeuvered by the prosecution, wherever direct connecting evidence does not come their way. There exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt as envisaged by Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. Therefore, the instant application is accepted, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest-bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.