' The petitioners who were arrested in case F. I. R. No, 21/81, dated 21-1-1981 registered under section 302, P. P. C. At Police Station Mian Channu have filed the present petition for bail after their request for bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, ride his order dated 1- 6-1981.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated in the F. I. R. Are that on 20-1-1981 at about 10.00 p. m. Muhammad Akram son of Ghulam Muhammad complainant went to take a round of his fruit garden which had been leased out to one Siraj Din. After about half an hour the complainant was informed by his nephew that Muhammad Akram was lying injured near the garden. On receiving the above information he rushed towards the garden and found that his son Muhammad Akram was lying on a cot in injured condition. Ahmad, Allah Yar., Muhammad Nawaz, Pahlwan and Mehraj Din were also present there. Muhammad Akram had received injury on his head. He was immediately removed first to the house of the complainant and from there he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mian Channu. On the following day he was shifted to Nishtar Hospital Multan under the advice of the doctor but he succumbed to his injuries on 23-1-1981 at 8.00 p. m.
3. During the investigating of the case, Naika and Ghulam Muhammad appeared before the Investigating Officer and informed him that they had seen the petitioners and one Maqbool coming out of the fruit garden on the night when Muhammad Akram was injured. On 30-1-1981 the petitioners and the aforementioned Maqbool were produced before the police. On the same day Dil Ahmad and Mokha made statements before the Investigating Officer that the petitioners and their co-accused Maqbool had confessed before them that on 20-1-1981 they had entered the fruit garden to steal Kinnos but Muhammad Akram deceased challenged them and caught hold of the petitioners. Maqbool who was carrying a danda in his hand gave a blow with it on the head of Muhammad Akram in order to secure release of the petitioners. After the arrest of the petitioners and Maqbool blood-stained danda was recovered on the pointing out of Maqbool. Muhammad Sharif petitioner also led the police to the place where the deceased was given the fatal blow.
Bloodstained earth was secured by the Investigating Officer from the aforementioned place.
4. The petitioners have prayed for bail inter alia on the grounds that they have been falsely implicated in the case that the case was registered after 3 days' delay for which no explanation has been given by the complainant ; that the petitioners were not named in the F.
1. R. That the "Waj-Takkar" witnesses as well as the persons before whom the extrajudicial confession was allegedly made by the petitioners are closely related to the deceased and as such are interested persons ; that the alleged extrajudicial confession is not admissible in evidence as it was stated to have been made by the accused jointly and that no over act has been attributed to the petitioners in the commission of the murder of Muhammad Akram.
5. Petitioners' prayer for bail has been opposed on behalf of the State. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State. The prosecution, as noticed above, relies on circumstantial evidence in this case which consists of the statement of two "Waj- Takkar" witnesses, extra-judicial confession of the accused, recovery of a blood-stained danda on the pointing out of Maqbool accused and the recovery of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence on the pointing out of Muhammad Sharif petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioners that Naika, and Ghulam Muhammad P. Ws. Who had allegedly seen the petitioners coming out of the garden on the night of 20-1-1981 are closely related to the deceased. Naika is the husband of Muhammad Akram's sister while Ghulam Muhammad is his sister's son. Being residents of the same Chak to which the deceased belonged the aforementioned witnesses must have come to know that Muhammad Akram was found injured near the garden at about 10.00 p.m. On 20-1-1981.
They must have also come to know that the person or persons who had caused injuries to Muhammad Akram were not known. Although they had seen the petitioners and their co-accused coming out of the garden at about the same time when Muhammad Akram was injured, they informed the police about it on 24-1-1981 after the death of Muhammad Akram and the registration of the present case. They will have to give satisfactory explanation as to why the above information could not be imparted by them to the police earlier. The evidence of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by all the accused jointly before Dil Ahmad who is the husband of the complainant's sister and Mokha who is the cousin of the deceased after 10 days of the occurrence will not be readily accepted at the trial as the prosecution, besides meeting the petitioners' objections that the witnesses to the alleged extra-judicial confession are interested persons, will also have to explain the circumstance which led the accused to confess their guilt before the aforementioned witnesses 10 days after the occurrence. Similarly the evidence with regard to collection of blood-stained earth from the place where Muhammad Akram was given danda blow by Maqbool 10 days after the occurrence at the instance of Muhammad Sharif petitioner will require scrutiny by the learned trial Judge as the prosecution will have to satisfy him that the blood stains were noticeable on the ground even 10 days after the occurrence and the same had not disappeared, especially when the said place was accessible to every one. The delay in lodging the F. I. R. Is also an important factor which the prosecution will have to explain at the trial.
6. The various aspects of the case, as referred to in the preceding paragraph indicate that further inquiry is necessary to determine the petitioners' guilt and their case is covered by the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Their prayer for bail is accordingly allowed and they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal. .