' The petitioner seeks bail in a case F.I.R. No,47/93, dated 13-6-1993 under section 396, P.P.C.
Registered against him at Police Station Umar Kot, Tehsil Rojhan, District Rajanpur.
2. The prosecution version in brief is that a Truck No,9173/AJKA, which was loaded with onions left for Faisalabad. The complainant, his brother Rashid Ahmad and his cousin Mehr Din, also accompanied the driver in the same truck. It was also followed by another Truck No,7068/JI which also left for the same destination. When both the trucks reached the bus stop Baqir Wali, six persons variously armed, emerged on the scene of occurrence. One of them robbed the complainant of his cash amount of Rs,3,000. During this process, when Rashid Ahmad and Mehr Din tried to overpower one of the assailants, all of them resorted to indiscriminate firing, which resulted in the death of Rashid Ahmad and Mehr Din. It subsequently transpired that one of the assailants also lost his life during that occurrence. It is further alleged that Gul Sher and Tagia P.Ws. Saw the petitioner armed with a gun standing near Kotla Hassan Shah on the same night waiting for the bus.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assailants in this case were neither identified by the complainant nor by someone else present on the scene of occurrence and that no identification parade was conducted to fix the responsibility for the gruesome murder upon the petitioner or other accused. He further submits that even if the petitioner was found present near Kotla Hassan Shah armed with the gun, it did not necessarily mean that it was he who committed the aforesaid offence alongwith other accused.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner was present at Adda at Kotla Hassan Shah armed with a gun on the same night. He further argues that recovery of the gun and some cash amount connects the petitioner with the guilt. He also submits that all the accused including the petitioner confessed their guilt before Sher Dil and Mir Muhammad P.Ws.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. It appears that the assailants were not known to the complainant prior to the occurrence. Admittedly no identification parade was conducted. I think that identification parade was necessary particularly when the complainant and other witnesses present on the scene of occurrence had stated that they could recognize the accused. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Muhammad Ali and another v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1953. No doubt that two innocent persons of the complainant party lost their lives but there must be some sufficient material to believe that the petitioner was responsible for the same offence in any manner. Further the petitioner is not legally obliged to explain his involvement in the case. Extra-judicial confession is a joint one which is not admissible in the eye of law.
' For the foregoing reasons, I admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,30,000 .(Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate concerned.