' The petitioner has applied for grant of bail in a case registered against some unknown persons vide F.I.R. No,449, dated 7-8-1996 for offences under section 302/34 of the P.P.C. At P.S. Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad. Subsequently, during the investigation, offences under sections 109 and 449 of the P.P.C. Were added.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant. The petitioner has been implicated in the case on account of the alleged conspiracy made by him with his co- accused namely Waheed son of Asmat (absconder), Asmat Ullah son of Allah Rakha, Ghulam Rasool, Nawaz Jahangir and Shahbaz for killing Asmat Ullah, deceased son of Nawab Khan. The evidence of conspiracy was furnished by Waryam and Nisar whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 7-8-1996. It may be mentioned here that at the time of admission of the petition for regular hearing, the petitioner's learned counsel had wrongly urged that the evidence of conspiracy was recorded two months after the occurrence. He has expressed deep regrets for his lapse and undertaken to be careful in future. Both Waryam, and Nasir stated that on 6-8-1996 they were sitting in the compound of P.S. Chak Jhumra at about 6-00 p.m. Where Asmat Ullah, petitioner, Asmat Ullah son of Allah Rakha, Waheed Rasool, Ghulam Rasool, Jahangir, Muhammad Nawaz and Shehbaz Masih were also sitting. They added that in their presence ' Asmat Ullah (son of Allah Rakha) told Ghulam Rasool, Jahangir, Nawaz and - Shehbaz Masih that Chaudhary Asmat Ullah son of Nawab Khan brother of the M.P.A., used to oppose them in every matter, therefore, they should finish him. Thereafter, the present petitioner and Waheed Rasool also gave the same advice to them one by one. Prima facie, it does not appeal to reason that the accused persons would have talked loudly in respect of their plan to kill the deceased in the presence of a number of other persons around them. Moreover, if Waryam and Nisar P.Ws. Had heard about the conspiracy while standing in the courtyard of the police station, they should have immediately informed the police for taking suitable preventive action against the culprits. Anyhow, the question whether the petitioner had conspired for killing the deceased requires further probe and would be finally determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence. The prosecution is also relying on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by Jahangir and Ghulam Rasool co-accused before Iftikhar and Mushtaq on 26-8-1996 in which the said accused persons also deposed against the petitioner with reference to the conspiracy to kill the deceased. The "proved confession" of the co-accused is relevant against the other accused persons by virtue of the provisions of Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The stage of proving the alleged extra-judicial confession has not yet come because the petitoner's trial has not commenced, though the challan has been submitted in the Court. Prima Facie, the matter requires further probe and inquiry qua the petitioner's guilt. At this stage, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed the offence alleged against him.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad.