' Rahim Bakhsh, petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,725 of 1999, dated 29-11-1999 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Jampur, District Rajanpur, on the statement of Mst. Ghulam Janat alias Gudo.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R., on the fateful night four persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and one of the accused was armed with a pistol. He fired at the husband of the complainant, which proved fatal. In the F.I.R. It was suspected that Muhammad Hanif had conspired this murder with the help of other accused.
3. During investigation four persons were named as accused i,e, RahiM. Bukhsh, petitioner, Soba, Shahid and Ayub. Soba aNd Rahim Bukhsh accused were arrested while Shahid and Ayub accused are still absconders.
4. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in a number of criminal cases and has a history of committing crimes. He has pointed out the incriminating evidence available against the petitioner i,e, exculpatory extra-judicial confession of the petitioner made before the two P.Ws. Namely Allay Wasaya Khokhar and Ghulam Hussain Khokhar, and recovery of a stick, which was not blood- stained. Admittedly there is no other incriminating evidence available on the record against the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Neither any suspicion has been shown against him. Even the recovery of stick, which was not stained with blood, has no evidentiary value at all. Similarly the perusal of the statements of the witnesses before whom the petitioner had made exculpatory extra-judicial confession, shows that the petitioner was offered Rs,50,000 and was also promised of pardon. Prima facie such type of extra-judicial confession cannot be termed as voluntary statement. According to the P.Ws. Before making the confession, the petitioner has been negotiating terms and conditions with the P.Ws. And has confessed about his participation in the occurrence on 2-4-2000, yet the witnesses made the statements before the Police after two days i,e, on 4-4-2000. According to this confession the petitioner was standing nearby while the other four persons were responsible for the offence.
6. I am afraid, the past history of involvement of the petitioner in the crimes cannot be made basis for his conviction in the instant case.
7. For what has been discussed above, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs, one lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.