' The complainant, Israr-ul-Haq was informed by Nazir Ahmad and Munir Ahmad about presence of a dead body, packed in a shopping bag, in front of their house whereon he along with them went to the spot and found the dead body of an unknown male person, which was at advanced stage of decomposition, hence unidentifiable.
2. One Maqbool Ahmad joined investigation on 05.08.2012 and he identified the said dead body as that of his son Imran Ahmad, at the mortuary, Nishtar Hospital, Multan. He presented a written application before the Investigating Officer whereby he contended that he was of firm belief that his son Imran Ahmad was murdered, by Amjad Hussain, the petitioner.
3. A team of three witnesses, Saeed Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Mushtaq joined investigation on 10.11.2012 and rendered statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. With the contentions that Muhammad Amjad accused-petitioner had approached Saeed Ahmad at his baithak in presence of the other witnesses on 08.11.2012 and admitted to have murdered Imran Ahmad (deceased) under a conspiracy so that he could swindle some amount of money from his family members.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is found that Maqbool Ahmad, real father of Imran Ahmad deceased showed his firm belief in his written application, he presented, before the Investigating Officer on 05.08.2012. Against jad Hussain accused-petitioner by contending that it was he who had murdered his son. He did not disclose the source through which he acquired the knowledge, as to culpability of the accused-petitioner in this case. The witnesses of extra judicial confession, Saeed Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Mushtaq were allegedly approached by the accused on 08.11.2012 to admit his guilt and seek their help in the A matter, but they did not disclose this fact immediately to the. Investigating Officer or the complainant and they remained tight lipped for two long days, which reflected on the veracity of their assertions, as to admission of guilt by the accused before them. It has been held time and again that extra judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence which can easily be mancouvered by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence does not come their way.
So far as recovery of cell phone of the deceased on 13.12.2012 at the instance of the petitioner is concerned, its evidentiary value may better be assessed by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties during trial, The Investigating Officer however did not prepare a memo. Of identification in this regard. There is no other evidence on the record which may incriminate the petitioner in this case. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further probe into his guilt, within the scope of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this application is allowed and petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is underlined that observations contained hereinabove are of tentative nature which would have no bearing upon the merits of the case at trial.