ORDER MUHAMMAD NASEEM, J.- About the blind murder of his paternal uncle Muhammad Sarwar Khan living all alone close to his house, Zahid Anwar complainant reported the matter to the Police, Police Station Makhdoompur- Pahofan, District Khanewal on 27.12.1994 where FIR No. 165 was registered u/S. 302, PPC on the same date. Sections 379/411/34, PPC have been added by the police, According to Zahid Anwar complainant Mst. Munni intimated him that door of the house and the rooms of Muhammad Sarwar Khan were Open whose dead body was lying in the courtyard. He reached there alongwith his sister Mst. Abdia Parveen, Muhammad Tahir Khan and Sajid Khan residents of the village. He did not cast any suspicion on any person. The police started the investigation. The deed body was taken into possession and was sent for autopsy. On 28.12.1994 Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan PWs stated that Shakeel Ahmad came to them while he was perplexed and on their query he intimated them that alongwith Muhammad Sohail co-accused he had gone to the house of Muhammad Sarwar Khan to get the amount on loan as they had to see the Variety Show where Muhammad Sarwar Khan demanded the amount of Rs. 200/- which was obtained on loan by Muhammad Sohail already and there he (Shakeel Ahmad) injured' Muhammad Sarwar Khan deceased with Chhuri. According to these Pws there were some signs of injuries on the hands of Shakeel Ahmad. Both Shakeel Ahmad and Muhammad Sohail were arrested by the police on 4.1.1995. Sohail Ahmad petitioner was admitted to bail by Syed Akhtar Naqi Naqvi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Khanewal while the bail plea of Shakeel Ahmad petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the statements of both Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan about the extra-judicial confession of Shakeel Ahmad were recorded on 28.12.1994 i.e. On the next day of occurrence.
Shakeel Ahmad petitioner has filed this petition on try his luck to be admitted 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 petitioner is that the evidence to be produced against Shakeel Ahmad petitioner is that he allegedly made the extra-judicial confession before Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan PWs and that there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner accused with the occurrence. He has expressed that the evidence of extra-judicial confession can be a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot itself form the basis of conviction of the accused. On the contrary learned counsel for the complainant and the learned State counsel laid the emphasis that due to the submission of the challan the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
3. My view is that the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for Shakeel Ahmad must prevail. The reasoning adopted by him has the blessing of the law of the land. The only ingredient available against Shakeel Ahmad petitioner accused with the prosecution is his alleged extra- judicial confession said to have been made before Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan PWs.
There is no other material ingredient to corroborate the said PWs. I would be glossing over an important aspect of the matter that according to both Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan PWs there were signs of injuries on both the hands of Shakeel Ahmad petitioner-accused. However, after his arrest Shakeel 'Ahmad petitioner- accused was not got medically examined in this regard which could be a corroborative piece of evidence. There is no recovery of Chhuri at the instance of Shakeel Ahmad petitioner-accused, In the circumstances, my view is that the involvement of Shakeel Ahmad petitioner-accused is that of further inquiry who is entitled for bail.
4. I, therefore, accept this application and admit Shakeel Ahmad petitioner-accused to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Khanewal.