1. Bilal Ahmad petitioner and Muhammad Akram (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1686-B/81) have sought bail in case F. I. R. No. 106/81 under sections 302 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. Since both the petitions arise out of the same matter, the same are disposed of by this order.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds :-
(a) that their names have not been mentioned in the First Information Report ;
(b) that there is no eye-witness account ;
(e) that no recovery of any incriminating article has been effected at the instance of the petitioners ; and
(d) that there is no direct judicial or extra-judicial confession by them, Learned counsel for the State has argued that it was a blind murder committed by administering poison to grab money which the deceased was having with him before his death. According to him circumstantial evidence has comeforth during the investigation. It has been revealed during the investigation that the co-accused of the petitioners had approached the deceased in a mosque prompting him that if some amount is collected for the construction of the mosque and shown to a gentleman (not named), he will be prepared to bear the whole expenses of construc--tion. The investigation has further revealed that the deceased was brought on this pretext on the day when he had collected Rs. 14,200 and the same was with him. In the later investigation it has been found that one Matiur Rehman co-accused of the petitioners had brought the poison and had administered the same. There is extra-judicial confes--sion of Mati-ur-Rehman before Ch. Muhammad Rafiq and Ata Muhammad. Names of the petitioners and other co-accused have also been mentioned therein but the allegation is of their being present only at the time, the poison was administered. Excepting the extra judicial con--fession made by Mati-ur-Rehman and the recovery of the left over of poison at the instance of Mati-ur-Rehman, there is no other evidence. However, the evidence of the deceased having been in the company of the petitioners and the co-accused some 2-3 hours before the occurrence has been collected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination had found a clot in right ventricle of the heart. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel that poison is stated to be an element of insecticide m this case and it will be for the trial Court to determine whether the death is by poison or the clot has also some part in the extinguishment of the life of the deceased. A It is also argued that there is concensus of the superior Courts that extra judicial confession is a weak evidence and the extra-judicial confession of the co-accused is still weaker.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State (1977 P Cr. L J 575) and have advanced the argument that the case of the petitioners is better than the case of the petitioners of the above-noted authority, there was evidence of extra-judicial confession made by the petitioners themselves, and there was also evidence of last seen and there was also recovery of a purse from one of the petitioners which contained a photograph of the deceased. Learned counsel for the peti--tioners have also placed reliance upon Shaukat v. The State (NLR 1980 U. C. Lah. 199). In this case too there was extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner himself and the allegation was that insecticide had been administered to the deceas-- ed in lassi. The bail was granted on the ground that the absence of sufficient evidence inconsistent with the innocence of the petitioner entitles the petitioner to bail.
6. In the circumstances of the case, both the petitioners, namely Bilal Ahmad and Muhammad Akram are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner (Sadar), Lahore.