' The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 302, P P C arising out of F.I.R. No,193, dated 24-12-1992, registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that some unknown persons committed the murder of Imtiaz and later on the petitioner was involved in this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner with respect to the offence lodged in the F.I.R. There is only evidence of joint extra-judicial confession against the petitioner which was allegedly made by the petitioner on 26-12-1992 to Miraj Din son of Muhammad Siddique and Zulfiqar son of Talib Hussain. The petitioner has got no motive against the deceased. Over and above this, the petitioner has got enmity with Mushtaq son of Anwar who is principal 'accused in this case because lmtiaz deceased allegedly had illicit relations with the daughter of aforesaid Mushtaq. He has placed reliance on 1977 SCMR 251 1972 P Cr. L J 1302, PLD 1972 Lah. 563, PLD 1990 PC 326 and 1948 P Cr. L J 242.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer and the complainant submitted that Mushtaq son of Anwar made judicial confession on 31-12-1992 in which he named the petitioner as one of the persons who took the deceased from Billiard room to the house of Shahbaz and Mushtaq where ultimately he was done to death. He also submitted that there is last seen evidence of Afzal and Rashid as they saw the petitioner alongwith his co-accused on 27-12-1992, hence irl the presence of this material, the case against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause and he is not entitled to bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there is judicial confession of Mushtaq son of Anwar in which he has admitted the guilt and also disclosed about the participation of the present petitioner and other accused. In addition to that there is extrajudicial confession of the petitioner made before Miraj Din and Zulfiqar which is not joint as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Over and above this, there is evidence of last seen by Muhammad Afzal and Rashid Ahmad P.Ws. On 27-12-1992 as is apparent from their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In the presence of this material, this Court would not like to make deeper appreciation of the evidence lest it may prejudice the case of either party. Suffice it to say on the present record, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. No case for the grant of bail is made out, this petition stands dismissed.