' This is an application for the bail on behalf of Ghulam Saddique petitioner in a case registered against him under section 302/34 P.P.C. Read with section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 vide F.I.R. No, 349, dated 28-12-1989, at police station Saddar Bhakkar.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he murdered Muhammad Ibrahim aged 12 years son of the complainant, after committing sodomy with him, fifteen or sixteen days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. The petitioner then made extra judicial confession before the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no ocular evidence of the murder against the petitioner, except the evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before the complainant. He submitted that the extra judicial confession is the wcekest type of the evidence and no conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of this evidence and placed reliance on Allah Ditta v. The State 1977 SCM R 251, Haji Ahmed and another v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J 460 and Jan Muhammad v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 17.
4. The learned counsel further contended there is no evidence on the record to show that the human bones recovered by the police were in fact of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased as alleged in the F.I.R. The learned counsel further submitted that the age of deceased as given in the F.I.R. Is 12 years, whereas according to the doctor, the age of the skull bones recovered by the police from the spot is about 16 years, thus the version given in the F.I.R. Is against the medical evidence. He urged that as per F.I.R. Deceased met his death 16/17 days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., whereas the police recovered only human bones from the spot, which contradicts the prosecution version as the human body is skeletonized after one to three months, thus the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of right.
5. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., as such there exist reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is involved in a case which falls within a prohibitory clause hence he is not entitled to the bail. He further submitted that the case is likely to be fixed for trial in near future and there is no legal justification to grant bail to the petitioner in view this development.
6. I have carefully examined the respective submissions of the parties, in order to arrive at the conclusion whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe that a person is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause or not. The Court at bail stage has to examine the following material, that is the F.I.R., any incriminating recovery made at the instance of the accused or any incriminating circumstantial evidence collected by the police during the investigation.
7. Applying aforementioned principle of law to the facts of the case, I find that the material so far collected by the police failed to justify that there exist reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner with the offence which falls within prohibitory clause. The bones recovered from the spot prima facie do not link the petitioner with crime alleged against him. The extra judicial confession in the absence of any other independent evidence may not by itself be sufficient to bring home the guilt to the petitioner on a capital charge, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of right.
' If the case falls within the ambit of section 497, subsection (2) Cr.P.C., then the concession of bail cannot be withheld solely on the ground that the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future.
8. For the foregoing reasons the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 (thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.