1. ' MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, J.--- Applicant Dr. Dodo Mehri son of Muhammad Saleh Mehri is accused in Crime No, 357/90 under sections 302, 307, 338/34, P.P.C. Read with sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, registered at Police Station Market, Hyderabad, on 15-7-1990 at 15-00 hours in Crime No, 422/90 under sections 302, 324, 307, P.P.C. Read with section 5/6 of Explosive Substance Act, registered at Police Station City, Hyderabad, on 15-7-1990 at 15-00 hours, in Crime No,75/90 under sections 304, 427, P.P.C. Read with section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, registered at Police Station S.I.T.E., Hyderabad, on 15-7-1990 at 14-30 hours, in Crime No,192/90 under sections 302, 307, 325, 326, 427, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, registered at Police Station Phuleli, Hyderabad, on 15-7-1990 at 14-45 hours and in Crime No, 15/90 under sections 302, 307, 325, 427, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, registered at Police Station Pingari, Hyderabad, on 15-7-1990 at 14-30 houRs, The challans in the cases have been submitted before the Special Court (S.TA.), Hyderabad where separate applications for bail were moved on behalf of the applicant which are dismissed by a consolidated order, dated 21-7-1993. Bail applications were then filed before this Court but the same were dismissed for non-prosecution by a Division Bench of this Court on 13-9-1993. Because of such dismissal the applications have been repeated before this Court. Since the offences with which the applicant is charged are almost identical, as also the grounds urged before us, we propose to dispose of all applications by a single order.
2. ' The facts of all cases are identical and it is stated that on 15-7-1990 at about 1-30 p.m. There were bomb blasts at various points in the city of Hyderabad which caused death of some persons and so also the injuries to many otheRs, Initially names of the culprits were not mentioned in the F.I.Rs, but the investigation went on. The applicant herein was arrested on 15-7-1992 in Crime No,62/91 under section 365-A of P.P.C. By Chamber Police of Taluka Tando Allahyar and this fact came to be known when applicant's father Muhammad Saleh Mehri filed Constitutional Petition No,3099 of 1992 before this Court, in which the S.D.P.O. Chamber had appeared and filed a statement showing applicant's arrest in the above crime and on the date above-referred. The statement of the S.D.P.O.
3. Further disclosed that the applicant was released by him on 16-12-1992 but on the said date he was arrested by S.H.O. Police Station Market, Hyderabad, in Crime No,356 of 1990, one of the cases of bomb blasts at Hyderabad, registered on 15-7-1990. There is another statement filed by S.H.O.
4. Police Station Market, Hyderabad, in the above-referred Constitutional petition which disclosed that the applicant was released in Crime No,357/90 under section 169, Cr.P.C. On 22-12-1992.
5. ' An order, dated 11-1-1993 passed in the above-referred Constitutional petition shows that the custody of the applicant was handed over by the police to the army authorities on 22-12-1992 since when he is in custody. However, applicant seems to have been shifted to Karachi where he gave a judicial confession on 10-1-1993 before A.C.M. No,VII, Karachi (East) and this confession was after about 25 days of his arrest by the army.
6. ' This solitary piece of evidence of judicial confession by applicant has been made basis of challans, submitted against him, in which he is shown in custody while two others namely Ghulam Haider Shahani and Amir Azam Bhunbro are shown as abscondeRs, ' We have heard the learned counsel and perused the entire record including various orders passed in a Constitutional petition filed by the applicant's father challenging the detention of his son. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate for the applicant, has contended that except the judicial confession said to have been given by the applicant on 10-1-1993 after his detention by army personnel for nearly 25 days cannot end in the conviction of the appellant and that the evidence of solitary confession would be a ground of enlarging the applicant on bail. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to the case of Mumtaz Ali Sheikh and another v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1919, where it was observed that the Court can consider whether judicial confession made by the accused by itself is sufficient or not in a given case to deny the concession of bail to him. In the said case the accused had remained in custody for 11 days before his confession was recorded and although he was charged for an offence under section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, bail was granted. Learned counsel then referred to the case of Muhammad Sadiq Umrani v. Government of Sindh PLD 1993 Kar.
735. In the cited case the accused were in illegal custody of the Law Enforcement Agency when they gave confession and it was observed that "if during the course of illegal custody any of the accused had made any confession, the same will not be admissible in evidence for reasons that at the relevant time, neither any case was registered against the said persons in any police station nor they were required by the police in any pending case". It was also observed that since the custody of the accused with the agency was not under a valid authority, any confession thus made could not be termed to be voluntarily or genuine. Reliance is also placed on Syed Kamaruddin v.
7. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 624 where a Division Bench of this Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that the accused was not shown as an accused in the case either in the F.I.R. Or in the statements originally recorded by police under section 161, Cr.P.C. And was subsequently implicated therein after his interrogation in some other cases. Learned counsel lastly referred to the case of Arif Nawaz Khan and others v. The State PLD 1991 FSC 53 where in paragraph 16 it was observed as follows:-- "16. In the instant case, it is established from the record that the accused Arif Nawaz was arrested on 8-8-1988 and twice the remand was taken for three days each and on the last day when the second remand was going to expire the accused is alleged to have been produced before P.W.3, a First Class Magistrate. The confession, as such, was recorded after about 6 days of arrest on 15-8- 1988. The delay in recording the confession remains unexplained. It cannot of certain, be said that the confession, if at all made by the accused, was voluntary."
8. ' Mr. Abdul. Mujeeb Pirzada, also argued that applicant has been in custody for nearly 23 months and even the charge has not been framed perhaps for the reason that action against the absconding accused, named in the challan, is not taken. According to him this aspect of the case would also entitle applicant to grant of bail.
9. ' Mr. S. Ashique Raza, appearing for the State has vehemently opposed these applications and has argued that the applicant is involved in cases which are heinous in nature and the accused in such cases do not normally agree to give confession unless they are pressed by circumstances to volunteer to give confession. He has also argued that two accused, named in the challans, are still absconding because of which the trial against the applicant could not commence. He referred to the case reported in PLD 1972 SC 363, where it was observed that mere fact that person making confession remained in police custody for some time would not lead to conclusion that confession was tutored. He also referred to the case reported in PLD 1954 Lah. 783, where it was observed that while recording the judicial confession it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that confession was voluntary and since the Magistrate on having questioned the accused found the confession being given by him was voluntary and without any pressure, he recorded the same. It is also argued that the confession is inculpatory as the applicant has admitted to have planned to explode bombs for creating terror and panic at different places in Hyderabad.
10. ' We have considered above contentions and have perused the record. There is no cavil with the proposition of law canvassed on behalf of the applicant by his learned counsel. The release of the applicant by either Chamber Police of Tando Allahyar or by Market Police of Hyderabad would not lead to an inference that his arrest in these cases was either based on mala fide of police or because of applicant's political affiliation. Two accused namely Ghulam Haider Shahani and Amir Azam Bhamboo are still absconding and it seems that due to their absconsion the trial against the applicant has not commenced. Besides heinous offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, the applicant is also charged under various sections of the Explosive Substances Act the punishment for some of which is up to 14 yeaRs, Most of the offences, with which the applicant is charged, are covered by prohibitory clause o ' section 497 of Cr.P.C. The confessional statement of the accused is in a way inclupatory, as, he admitted having planned to explode bombs at various points in Hyderabad to create terror and to overawe the Government. Mere delay in the disposal of the case against him would be no grounds for enlarging him on bail as the ground of statutory delay is not available to the applicant. It would be premature in our view to hold that the case of the applicant either requires further inquiry or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offences, with which he is charged. Unless some evidence is recorded by the trial Court, we find no merit in these applications and dismiss the same. The trial Court, shall, however, take all legal steps necessary to commence the trial against the applicant at least, if the absconding accused cannot be arrested. After some evidence is recorded the applicant may repeat his bail application before the trial Court, if so advised.