F.I.R. No.70 dated 13-3-1995 stands registered at Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh at the instance of Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan under section 460, P.P.C. With the allegation that he was a resident of Qaisar Ghazlani and was a cultivator. On the previous night at 11-30 p.m. He awoke on the barking of the dog. Four unknown culprits each of whom had put on Shalwar and shirt who were speaking 'Siraiki' language and each. Of them was armed with pistol were present in the courtyard. He raised the Lalkara. One of the accused fired at him which hit him on his head.
Ghulam Hussain deceased of the case came out of 'Bhana' of cattle who caught hold of one culprit. During the grappling one of the culprits fired at the said Ghulam Hussain which hit his abdomen. He fell on the ground. Mehar A.I and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. As well as many other persons were attracted at the spot who saw the occurrence. The culprits made good their escape during the darkness. Ghulam Hussain expired.
2. The police investigated the case. At one stage Ghulam Farid and Hazur Bakhsh were arrested as the accused under section 54, Cr.P.C. However, they were not declared as the culprits. On 5-5-1995 Ghulam Muhammad aged 28 years and his brother Muhammad Azam aged 18 years both sons of Ghulam Farid were arrested by the police under section 54, Cr.P'C. Whose physical remand was obtained. On 15-5-1995 the statements of Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Yaseen were recorded by the police who deposed that on the night of occurrence they saw Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam petitioners sons of Ghulam Farid while running who were stopped when they told that they alongwith others had gone to the house of Hafiz Muhammad Ratnzan where the occurrence had taken place. Karim Bakhsh and Abdul Khalik. P.Ws., were also examined by the police on 15-5-1995 who told that they saw Sabir Hussain and others coming out of the house of Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan when they were intimated that Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam petitioners sons of Ghulam Farid had gone alongwith them where the occurrence had taken place. The challan for the prosecution of Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam petitioners has been prepared. They have been arrested. Their bail application has been rejected by the lower Court who have filed this petition for bail to try their luck in the matter.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the belated statements of Ghulam Qadir, Ghulam Yasin, Karim Bakhsh and Abdul Khaliq P. Ws.
Recorded on 15-5-1995 have no legal force as both these petitioners were arrested on 5-5-1995 while the occurrence took place on 13-3-1995 at 11.30 p.m. According to them to save his skin so that the case does not go untraced the S.H.O. Implicated both these petitioners Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam (real brothers) against whom the evidence was collected after their arrest and thus their involvement is a question of further inquiry. On the contrary learned counsel for the State has argued that the challan has been prepared against both these petitioners and the case cannot be held to be that of further inquiry. He added that both these petitioners stand connected with the occurrence.
4. However, my view is that both these petitioners are entitled to be admitted to bail. They were arrested on 5-5-1995 while the statements of the aforesaid P.Ws. Were recorded on 15-5-1995 when the accused were on physical remand. The occurrence took place on 12-3-1995 at I1-30 p.m.
The period in between 12-3-1995 (date of occurrence) and 15-5-1995 (the date when the statements of four P.Ws. Narrated above were recorded) is enough to establish that the involvement of these petitioners-accused is a question of further inquiry. Both these petitioners- accused remained on physical remand and they did not lead to the recovery of any weapon of offence. Their identification parade has not been got conducted. Mere on the basis of the alleged extra judicial confession said to have been made before the P.Ws. Whose statements were recorded after the delay of two months after the occurrence is not enough to make me agree with the learned State Counsel that these petitioners are not entitled to be admitted to bail. The P. Ws.
Examined by the police on 15-5-1995 remained silent for more than two months after the occurrence and this is enough to make me express that even at this stage their statements have to be taken into consideration with caution and the benefit of doubt can be granted to the petitioners for the purpose of their admission to bail. According to law the extra judicial confession can be a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot initially form the basis of conviction. The police did not preserve the moulds of the culprits and everything seems to have been done in routine to which no legal weight can be granted to make me hold that the petitioners are not entitled to be admitted to bail.
5. Muhammad Azam petitioner has also sought his bail on the ground that he was less than the age of 16 years. According to the School Leaving Certificate forming part of this petition his date of birth is shown as 3-8-1982. The occurrence took place on 12-3-1995. Even the Police Officer has mentioned his age in the case diary dated 5-5-1995 as 17/18 years. It is a common feature with the police that the age of a teen-ager is shown more than his actual age while the age of an old person is shown less than his actual age. On this ground well giving the weight to the School Leaving Certificate I hold that Muhammad Azam petitioner is less than the age of 16 years who is entitled to be admitted to bail in view of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been said above I hold that both these petitioners are entitled to be admitted to bail. I, therefore, accept this application and admit both Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Azam sons of Ghulam Farid (petitioners-accused) to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh/Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh.