The petitioners, who are involved in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No. 396, dated 22-6-1990, registered at Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura, seek to be admitted to bail.
2. According to the prosecution, the deceased was done to death by some unknown persons as no one was named as accused in the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. According to prosecution on 24-6-1990, statement of Altaf Virk Advocate was recorded, wherein he for the first time named the petitioners as accused alongwith one Nasir, as the principal accused, but the S.H.O. Who recorded that statement did not take any legal action and ultimately on 6-8-1990, the petitioners were found innocent. Then in order to remove the lacuna appearing in the prosecution case, a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 30-8-1990, wherein all the persons were mentioned as accused. The next piece of evidence against the petitioners is that of extra-judicial confession allegedly made before Ch. Muhammad Nawaz and Ch. Muhammad Usman of Lahore, which is the weakest type of evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid material, learned counsel submitted that the case against the petitioners is one of further inquiry and they are entitled to bail as a matter of right.
3-A. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has contended that no doubt the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the F.I.R. But in the supplementary statement dated 30-8-1990 of the complainant, the petitioners alongwith their co-accused were named as the culprits in this case. He, however, conceded that the police found the petitioners innocent and the Police Officer, who- recorded the statement of Altaf Virk, Advocate on 24-6-1990, did not arrest Nasir, the main accused till 27-7-1990 and later on after the transfer of the investigation, the petitioners were arrested on 16-9-1990. The material so far collected by the prosecution, prima facie, connects the petitioners with the crime.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the police record, I find that so far the material collected by the police against the petitioners is not of such character on the basis of which one can say that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are involved in a case` which falls within the prohibitory clause. The statement of Altaf Virk, Advocate, dated 24-6- 1990, was never considered sufficient to arrest the principal accused in spite of his confession till 27-7-1990, which shows that this statement was not even believable in the estimation of the Police Officer. This Court, at this stage, without any further evidence to connect the petitioners with the crime, would not like to place reliance on that statement. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence, in the absence of any other independent evidence, it would not by itself sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioners, hence A the case against petitioners is one of further inquiry. The petitioners are accordingly admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (thirty thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Sheikhupura.