' Wakeel Ahmad petitioner was reported against vide F.I.R. No,158, dated 22-12-1994 for offence under section 302/364/201/109/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Phularwan, District Sargodha.
2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner armed with hatchet alongwith his co-accused Yaseen abducted Farooq Azam for the purposes of murdering him.
3. In support of the petition, it was argued that the petitioner was initially innocent and was not even arrested for quite a long time and now he had been involved only on the allegation of abetment; the statement of the witnesses of so-called abetment were recorded with a considerable delay, as such, the statement loose significance. There is a delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. Without explanation; there is no direct evidence of Qatl-e-Amd and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence.
4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that the two witnesses namely Muhammad Boota and Nazar Muhammad have implicated the petitioner in the commission of offence and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is no denying the fact that though extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence yet it is settled principle of law that powers conferred by section 497, Cr.P.C. Are not an arbitrary powers and has to be exercised with reference to material brought before the Court. The material consists of the accusation made in the report of the police, the nature and that credentials of the evidence and all other relevant circumstances surrounding the occurrence, as held in case of Manzoor and others v. State PLD 1972 SC 81. In the instant case, the occurrence was not witnessed and only extra-judicial confession is available on the record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in refusing bail to the petitioner as held in the case of Rashid Begum v. Abdul Rashid and others 1990 SCM R 579. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any malice either on the part of the police or the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion. Dismissed.