' Ghulam Abbas complainant got recorded F.I.R. No,132 at Police Station City, Jhang on 26-5-1990 under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code about an occurrence taking place on the night falling between 25/26-5-1990. According to him his brother Iqbal Shah (deceased of this case) worked as the domestic servant of Nadir Sultan P.W. On the previous night he came on a routine visit to see his said brother Iqbal Shah. They slept in the courtyard on their respective 'Charpai' while electric bulb was on. At midnight he heard the alarm of his brother Iqbal Shah on which his wife Mst.Naseem Bibi and he awoke. They saw that three persons, whose features are mentioned in the F.I.R., were present who placed the 'Chhura' on the neck of Iqbal Shah and injured him who died. He and Mst. Naseem Bibi went close to Iqbal Shah when they were threatened. He expressed that he could identify the assailants who had mercilessly murdered his brother and made good their escape. His alarm attracted Nadir Sultan and Ahmed Shah P.Ws.
2. The law was set in motion. After recording the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer visited the spot, made the spot inspection and took into possession the dead body of Iqbal Shah deceased which was sent for autopsy through a police constable. The statements of the P.Ws. Were recorded.
Ghulam Mustafa petitioner was initially arrested as the accused of the case on 20-10-1991. He was joined in the investigation and was interrogated. No material could be collected against him by the Investigating Officer who was let off on 10-11-1991.
3. It was on 2-11-1997 that the respective supplementary statements of Ghulam Abbas Shah complainant and Nadir Sultan, both the named eye-witnesses, were recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station City, Jhang. They stated that on 1-10-1997 at 5-00 p.m. At 'Darbar Hathi Wan' they were present where Ghulam Mustafa petitioner-accused arrived. They inquired from him about the murder of Iqbal Shah and after much reluctance he disclosed and made the confession that he carried on his illicit relations with Mst. Naseem Bibi, that on the day of occurrence Iqbal Shah deceased had seen both of them indulging in abnoxious activities, that he fled away, that to avoid the general disclosure of the aforesaid abnoxious activities he conspired with Mst. Naseem Bibi to whom he handed over some tablet which was administered to Iqbal Shah who became unconscious and that at the time of occurrence Mst. Naseem Bibi caught hold of his hair when he placed the Churri at his neck and injured him whereby he expired. According to the said P.Ws.
Ghulam Mustafa begged for pardon but they refused. On the basis of these statements of Ghulam Abbas Shah complainant P.W. And Nadir Sultan P.W. Ghulam Mustafa petitioner was again arrested on 2-11-1997 for the commission of the murder of Iqbal Shah. He moved the learned Court of Session at Jhang for his admission to bail which has been dismissed who has filed this petition before this Court with the same desire.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for Ghulam Mustafa petitioner argued that the petitioner was initially arrested on 20-10-1991 by the police and was let off on 10-11-1991. He added that after a long period supplementary statements of the eye-witnesses namely Ghulam Abbas Shah complainant and Nadir Sultan P.W. Were recorded on 2-11-1997 wherein the extra-judicial confession is attributed to Ghulam Mustafa, that in the statements the date of the making of the said confession is mentioned as "stated that yesterday on 1-10-1997 at 5-00 p.m. Ghulam Mustafa accused made the confession", but their statements are shown to have been recorded on 2-11-1997 which fact is enough to falsify the aforesaid supplementary statements. He added that the solitary ingredient of extrajudicial confession is not enough to connect Ghulam Mustafa with the occurrence which can at best prove to be corroborative piece of evidence whose involvement is that of further inquiry. On the contrary learned State Counsel laid the emphasis that the supplementary statements of the eye-witnesses Ghulam Abbas Shah complainant and Nadir Sultan have connected Ghulam Mustafa with the present occurrence who has rightly been denied the concession of bail by the learned Court of Session and is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
5. I, however, hold the view that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to prevail. According to both the supplementary statements of both the aforesaid eye- witnesses recorded on 2-11-1997 the alleged extra-judicial confession was made a day earlier on 1- 10-1997. In-between 1-10-1997 and 2-11-1997 there were thirty-one days and it cannot be said that a day earlier to 2-11-1997 the alleged extra-judicial confession was made. Ghulam Mustafa petitioner was joined in the investigation earlier as well who was released and the alleged extra judicial confession made afterwards is contradictory to the initial recitals of the F.I.R., and, thus, shall have to be viewed with caution and doubt even at this bail stage. The important aspect is that the solitary ingredient of extrajudicial confession, even if taken into account in toto, is not enough to prove as a barrier against the petitioner-accused for his admission to bail. Rather in the eyes of law the ingredient of extra-judicial confession can only prove to be a corroborative piece of evidence to other ingredients of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Consequently I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed that the involvement of Ghulam Mustafa petitioner-accused is a question of further inquiry.
6. At this stage I am tempted to express that a bail application has to be disposed of within the framework of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provision has glaringly been ignored by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case. I would express that the concession of bail cannot be denied in routine and an accused cannot be detained in judicial lock-up as a punishment. In the instant matter the petitioner is behind the judicial lock-up since 29-10-1997 while today is 1-10-1999. The only incriminating material against him is his alleged extra-judicial confession. It is a matter of common knowledge that a person behind the judicial lock-up is a parasite on the family, in addition to the pangs he has to suffer. There is overcrowding in the jails. A person out of judicial lock-up is a source of convenience to the family being an earning hand and during these days when the law and order situation is worsening, he is in a safe position to look after the family in addition to the provision of bread and butter. It would be instructive to express that the bail application(s) are also to be disposed of keeping in view the judicial propriety and the shape of scale of justice. Mere collection of aforesaid type of evidence after seven years of occurrence to be produced during the trial in this case cannot be termed as sacrosanct. By the denial of provision of statutory right to an accused whole of the family has to see and suffer the height of plight. As such I would like to express in this order that where there is a case of bail the concession must be granted to an accused.
7. For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Ghulam Mustafa petitioner- accused to bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousands only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang with the direction to appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned trial Court may cancel his bail.