' The two petitioners are involved in case F.I.R. No,,253 of 1997, dated 17-9-1997, for offences under section 302/109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mailsi, District Vehari, on the statement of Manzoor Ahmad alleging that on the night of occurrence Mushtaq Ahmad woke up, his father Khuda Bakhsh at 12-00 in the night on account of lunar eclipse and after giving Rs,10 for charity Khuda Bakhsh again slept and when at about 5-00 a.m. Irshad Ahmad brother of the complainant went to woke up his father for offering Fajar prayer and found him dead having injury on his eye.
2. Earlier the bail application of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, vide order, dated 6-4-1998.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case and that they were not nominated in the F.I.R. And that the extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and that the so-called recovery of gun was inconsequential and the same did not match with the crime-empty and that the so-called witness Khadim Hussain before whom the petitioner had made extra-judicial confession has sworn an affidavit connecting the prosecution version and that Ghulam Sarwar, the brother of the deceased before whom alleged extra-judicial confession is said to have been made instituted a complaint against Manzoor Ahmad and three others for the murder of his father Khuda Bakhsh and that the investigation is complete and the petitioners are no more required for that purpose.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners had a motive against the deceased as one year prior to the occurrence Ahmad Yar had abducted the daughter of Khuda Bakhsh for which a case of abduction was registered against him and his nephew Jind Wadda and that the police had raided at the house of Ahmad Yar, whereupon Ahmad -Yar had fired at the complainant and Khuda Bakhsh and as such Ahmad Yar nourished grudge.
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the sides.
6. The petitioners have been roped in on the basis of extra-judicial confession which is a weak type of evidence as held by their Lordships of the Honorable Supreme Court in Sarfraz Khan v. The State and 2 others 1996 SCM R 188. One of the alleged witness of the extra-judicial confessional has sworn an affidavit negating the prosecution story. In Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja v. The State 1991 SCM R 111 the Honorable Supreme Co -rt of Pakistan granted bail to the accused on the ground that the prosecution witness appeared in the Court and supported the averments made in the affidavit.
7. Without commenting any further lest it may prejudice the case of either party, the petitioner's case appears to be one of further inquiry. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.