' This is an application for bail by Mian Manzoor Ahmad, Mian Fazal Ahmad, Mian Meraj Din, Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Jehangir petitioners in case under section 302/148/149/109/120-B,, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station, Ichhra, Lahore vide F.I.R. No,2 of 1985, dated 4-1-1985.
2. The prosecution case is that on 4-1-1985 at 12-30 p.m. In Chowk Shadman, Lahore, Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Jehangir petitioners Nos.4 and 5, Noor Ahmad alias Noora Kashmiri and two absconders namely Asif Meraj and lkhlaq alias Guddu, caused the death of Sh. Muhammad Asghar, Afzal Bhatti, Rashid Ahmad and Muhammad Sadiq by fire-arms and that Mian Manzoor Ahmad, Mian Fazal Ahmad and Mian Meraj Din petitioners Nos.1 to 3 were party to criminal conspiracy to commit murder of aforesaid persons and that they had abetted Noor Ahmad alias Noora and others, the assailants by instigating them to do away with Sh. Muhammad Asghar deceased.
3. Mian Meraj Din, Mian Manzoor Ahmad and Mian Fazal Ahmad petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,584-B of 1985, Criminal Miscellaneous No,671/B of 1985 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,690/B of 1985, respectively for the grant of bail which were considered on merits and dismissed by me on 17-4-1985. Against this order, Criminal P.S.L.A. No,212 of 1985 filed in the Honourable Supreme Court, was dismissed on 24-6-1985. Mian Meraj Din petitioner filed second application for bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No,270-B of 1986) which was also dismissed by me on 2-3-1986. Mien Fazal Ahmad moved second application on medical ground which was dismissed on 31-7-1985. Mian Manzoor Ahmad petitioner also moved second application for bail but he withdrew the same. So, Mian Meraj Din, Mian Manzoor Ahmad and Mian Fazal Ahmad have now approached this Court for the third time for grant of bail while Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Jehangir petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 have applied for bail in this Court for the first time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that after the rejection of previous applications for bail of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, fresh grounds have arisen in due course of events which entitle the petitioners to the concession of bail, inasmuch as Muhammad Naeem and Wasim, proclaimed offenders of other cases, who were arrested by Ikram Ullah Niazi D.S.P., Ichhra on 29-7-1985, made judicial confessions in their statements Annexures 'E and F' recorded by Magistrate First Class Lahore, under section 164, Cr.P. C. On 7-11-1985 and 11-11-1985 respectively to the effect that they had killed Sh. Muhammad Asghar and his three companions by firing at them with Kalashinkof rifles, etc. That they did not depose anything against the petitioners in their confessional statements; that the same police which had investigated case F. I. R . No,2 of 1985, dated 4-1-1985 against the petitioners, having believed the version of the occurrence given by Muhammad Naeem and Wasim prepared report under. Section 173, Cr.P.C. In case in which Wasim and Muhammad Naeem were proclaimed offenders and made mention therein about their having killed Sh. Muhammad Asghar and his companions, that the D.M.L.A., Punjab, Lahore prepared charge-sheet containing three charges of murders of various persons including the instant murders besides the charge under Arms Ordinance 1965 and the case was referred to Special Military Court for trial. So, a counter-story in regard to the murder of Sh. Muhammad Asghar and three others, not only came before the same police but also before the Special Military Court and that in view of, the recent amendment in section 340, Cr.P.C. And section 44 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, the judicial confessions made by Muhammad Naeem and Wasim are very much admissible thougll made on oath. The learned counsel vehemently maintained that voluntary and exculpatory judicial confessions made by Muhammad Naeem and Wasim recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. In case other than the instant case subsequent to the dismissal on merits of the application of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, furnish fresh as well as reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have falsely been involved in the case and that they have not committed the alleged offences.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application on the ground that judicial confessions Annexures 'E and F' having been made on oath are inadmissible under section 5 of Act (X of 1873); that Muhammad Naeem and Wasim have since retracted from their confessions and that there is sufficient evidence on record for believing that the petitioners have committed the murders of Sheikh Muhammad Asghar and his three companions.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care and find that the allegations against Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Jehangir petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 in the F.I.R. Are that they alongwith their co-accused Noor Ahmed alias Noora, Asif Meraj and Ikhlaq Ahmad alias Guddu, made indiscriminate firing at Sh. Muhammad Asghar and his three companions resulting in their death; that the two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Aman Ullah and Muhammad Hanif in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have clearly implicated them; that the previous applications of Mian Meraj Din, Mian Fazal Ahmed and Mian Manzoor Ahmad were considered on merits and rejected by me on 17-4-1985 and the learned Supreme Court has refused leave against this order; that Muhammad Naeem and Wasim are neither being tried as co-accused nor have been cited as P.Ws. In the instant case; that the confessional statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Made by Muhammad Naeem and Wasim were not recorded in this case; that the said judicial confessions were recorded on oath; that the question of its admissibility is to be considered by the trial Court at proper stage for it would be premature to give definite findings in this regard lest it should prejudice the trial and that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the judicial confessions made by Muhammad Naeem and Wasim in a case other than the instant case, by themselves can hardly be regarded as sufficient or reasonable ground (within the meaning of section 497, Cr.P.C.) to believe that the petitioners have not committed the offence.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the bail petitions and dismiss the same. Bial refused.