' On 7th of April, 1989, Faiz Ahmed, Chowkidar, Mauza Gul Shah found a dead body lying on the eastern side of the Khal in the village. The dead body had also the wounds of the sharp-edged weapon. Faiz Ahmed, thus, reported the discovery of the dead body at Police Station Basirpur.
Accordingly, a case was registered.
2. During the investigation of this case, it transpired that deceased was Allah Ditta. His mother appeared before the police and stated that the deceased had a liaison with the sister of Irshad, Salim and Ayyub and that she suspected that these persons might have killed the deceased. In the light of her statement, Irshad, Salim and Ayyub were made to join the investigation but they were found innocent.
' Subsequent thereto, the petitioner Zulfiqar and Yaseen co-accused were made to join the investigation and it is alleged that both of them made extrajudicial confession and admitted to have killed the deceased.
3. The co-accused Yaseen was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the evidence as to the extra-judicial confession was very weak inasmuch, the same was made after two months of the occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, declined to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that besides the extra-judicial confession, a bloodstained hatchet had also been recovered at the instance of the petitioner.
4. In support of this bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is also at par with that of Yaseen co-accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge thus fell into grave error by refusing the grant of bail to the petitioner. It is further contended that on 7th of April, 1989, the dead body was noticed but the medical evidence revealed that the death had taken place 14 days before 7th of April, 1989 and thus the occurrence might have taken place in the last week of March, 1989 and from March, 1989 till arrest of the petitioner on 27th of May, 1989, the hatchet could not have been kept by the petitioner in his house and even if, there was hatchet, the blood stains should have been disintegrated. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extra-judicial confession is alleged to have been made before one Muhammad Ashraf. The said Muhammad Ashraf happens to be the real brother of Irshad, one of the accused who was earlier made to join investigation. It was next argued that Muhammad Ashraf is a made-up witness and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence as to the extra-judicial confession. The learned counsel also criticised the recovery of the hatchet at the instance of the petitioner and alleged that the witnesses of the recovery namely Allah Ditta and Barkat Ali are brothers-in-law of the deceased and no independent witness was cited to vouch for the recovery. It is further alleged that both these witnesses of the recovery are residents of village Roori which is situated at a distance of five miles from village Saidpur to which the petitioner belongs.
5. After careful consideration of all the facts of the case, it will not be in the interest of justice to give any finding at this stage, lest, it may prejudice either side. Prima facie, the case falls within the purview of section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus, being a case of further enquiry, I would direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Depalpur.