' Ch. Muhammad Ilyas, President Anjuman Tajraan, Gulshan Market, Multan was intimated by one Rafiq Ahmad at 10-45 a.m. On 16-5-1994 that in a vacant plot adjacent to Asim Junior Public School, 'K' Block New Multan a ginny bag containing a dead body was lying out of which stink was issuing. About this blind murder Ch. Muhammad Ilyas intimated the police and F.I.R. No,305, dated 16-5-1994 was registered at Police Station New Multan under section 302, P.P.C. The police investigated the case and during the investigation it was found that Mst. Yasmin co-accused widow of Nasim Hassan deceased of this case made the extrajudicial confession on 29-6-1994 before Manzoor and Tariq P.Ws. To the effect that she had committed the murder of her husband Nasim Hassan alongwith Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain accused (petitioners). On 3-7-1994 Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain accused-petitioners made the confession before Abdul Majeed P.W. To the same effect. Both Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain were arrested on 10-7- 1994. On 11-7-1994 both Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain accused are said to have led to the recovery of one trolley in which they had removed the dead body of Nasim Hassan. On 11-7-1994 their individual statements were recorded by a Magistrate 1st Class Multan wherein they confessed their guilt to the effect that they alongwith Mst. Yasmin caused the death of Nasim Hassan through asphyxia. On 12-7-1994 the statements of Mst. Umme Kulsoom aged 11 years and Mst. Rabia aged 9 years both daughters of Nasim Hassan deceased and Mst. Yasmin co-accused made their respective statements before the police to the effect that on the night falling between 14/15-7-1994 they were sleeping when they heard the shriek of their father. They went to that room and saw that towards the pillow side of their father their mother Mst. Yasmin and Intizar Hussain were standing while towards his feet Mukhtar Hussain was standing. They were intimated by their mother that their father was not feeling well. According to them their mother advised them to inform anybody enquiring about their father that he had gone out of house alongwith some person. Both Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain have filed this petition for their admission to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged judicial confession of both Intizar Hussain And Mukhtar Hussain petitioners was the outcome of coercion who were remanded back to the police custody by the Magistrate 1st Class after recording their confessional statements and for that reason this part of the evidence has no legal force. He continued that the extra-judicial confession of both the petitioners-accused as well as that of Mst. Yasmin was a weak type of evidence and the recovery of the trolley has no legal force. According to him the statements of Mst. Umme Kulsoom and Mst. Rabia recorded on 12-7- 1994 need not be given the weight in view of the lapse of period in between 16-5-1994 and 12-7- 1994. On the contrary learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the aforesaid type of evidence to be produced at the trial has connected both the accused persons prima facie with the occurrence in hand and they are not entitled to be admitted to bail.
According to them the extra-judicial confession made by a co-accused Mst. Yasmin has also to play the role against these petitioners. They relied on Haq Nawaz v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1494. On the authority Rehman v. Ghulam Qadir Khan alias Qadir Khan and another 1994 PCr.LJ 1513 they argued that the legality and propriety of the confessional statements cannot be scrutinized at bail stage as it would be for the trial Court to go into such delicate questions. They also referred to Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1969 SCM R 521 according to which the mere fact that the person making the confession was remanded back to the police custody by the Magistrate would not make the confession as involuntary.
3. Following type of evidence has to be produced by the prosecution during the investigation:-- Extra-judicial confession of Mst. Yasmin co-accused before Manzoor and Tariq P.Ws.
(ii) Extra-judicial confession of both Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain petitioner-accused before Abdul Majeed P.W.
(iii) Recovery of trolley.
(iv) Judicial confession of Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain petitioners-accused as well as that of Mst. Yasmin co-accused.
(v) Statements of Mst. Umme Kulsoom aged 11 years and Mst. Rabia aged 9 years implicating both the petitioners-accused and their mother Mst. Yasmin whom they had seen standing near the cost of their father Nasim Hassan at the time of occurrence.
4. After appreciating the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel I have to express my view that it is not a case for the admission of both Intizar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain to bail. The extra-judicial confession made by the female co- accused has to be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence alongwith their own extrajudicial confession before Abdul Majeed P.W. The recovery of trolley even if excluded at this initial stage is of no help to both the petitioners-accused. The judicial confession recorded by the Magistrate 1st Class Multan cannot be brushed aside lightly as desired by the learned counsel for the petitioners because in view of the aforesaid judgment 1992 PCr.LJ 1513 the legality and propriety of the same has to be gone into deeply by the trial Court. Even after the conclusion of their statements on the authority of 1969 SCM R 521 if the accused were remanded to the police custody the judicial confession cannot be held to be involuntary. The statements of Mst. Umme Kulsoom and Mst. Rabia even though recorded on 12-7-1994 need not be ignored keeping in view their tender ages which they made to unearth the blind murder especially when all the three accused 'had made their confessional statements before a Magistrate 1st Class. With the material to be produced during the trial by the prosecution it can safely be held that the petitioners are prima facie connected with the occurrence and the Investigating Officer has successfully made the investigation to implicate them. This being the position the petitioners are not entitled to be admitted to bail against whom the prosecution case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For what has been said above I dismiss this petition.