Five murders had taken place in the past mid-night of 30-8-1995 in the house of Abdul Rashid son of Gul Zaman, the complainant, in Village Dhok Ghakhran, 17/18 kilometres from Police Station Khanpur.
2. Abdul Rashid while lodging the report in the shape of ' Murasila', subsequently incorporated into F.I.R. No. 212, did not name the assailants and was not very certain about them. Anyhow, he disclosed that in the year 1983 he was convicted for the murder of one Nasir son of Azim in which he had served the sentence and also that he was convicted for the murder of one Gulshan in the year 1977 in which too he had served the sentence.
3. Upon disclosure of such motive the investigation proceeded and on 9-9-1995, a person named Habib was arrested, who on the same day made a statement before the Police admitting his involvement in the crime along with the present petitioner Abdul Qaddus and others. He led to the recoveries of crime weapons on 11-9-1995 and thereafter confessed his guilt in a confession before Magistrate on 12-9-1995. He involves Abdul Qaddus petitioner who happens to be the real brother of Nasir who was murdered in the year 1983 by the present complainant.
4. Abdul Qaddus is refused bail by the forums below and hence this application.
5. Sardar Abdur Rauf learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that Abdul Qaddus petitioner is attributed no active role in the commission of offence, that no recovery has been effected from him or at his instance and that he is involved only on the confessional statement of the co- accused Habib which is not admissible qua the petitioner.
6. Mr. Khalid Rehman learned counsel for the complainant alleged that it was a brutal act of indiscriminate killing of innocent lives which is reinforced by a very strong and proved motive, in addition to the inculpatory confession of Habib co-accused which stands supported by the eventual recoveries. The learned counsel as well as Mr. Tahir Hussain Lughmani, learned Assistant Advocate-General, referred to rulings as well in support of the fact that, in the circumstances, an inculpatory confessional statement of a co-accused can also be used against the other accused.
7. Apart from all the assertions and counter-assertions aforesaid, one should not lose sight of the fact that in this quinary murder any opinion expressed regarding the above facts would seriously affect the opinion of the trial Court. The complete challan already stands submitted in the trial Court on 19-2-1996. Summons were issued to the accused for 13-3-1996. Proceedings under section 265/C, Cr.P.C. Stood complied with on 1-4-1996, the charge stood framed on 24-4-1996 and the case was fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 12-6-1996 but it went futile because of the present application.
8. At this stage it would not at all be advisable to make any comments on such delicate issue when a trial of five persons has already commenced. Rather, the making of application and delaying of trial is most likely to affect the witnesses. The Supreme Court also had discouraged such grant of bail in PLD 1989 SC 585(C) and 1989 SCM R 2063.
9. In the circumstances the application is rejected. The office is directed to send the file to the trial Court positively within a week so that the trial is not delayed.