Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Bail Application No.73 of 1985, decided on 12th Februry, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 364/34‑‑Bail application‑‑No direct evidence available against accused‑‑Only evidence against him was of exculpatory extra‑judicial confession that deceased was killed by co‑accused and that he was last seen with deceased‑‑ Co‑accused already granted bail‑‑Case against accused being one of further enquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.
Kazi Pervez and others v. The State P L D 1976 Kar. 583 and Nazar Muhammad v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1678 ref.
Qurban Ali Chohan for Applicant.
Sarfraz Ahmad, A.A.‑G. for the State.
The applicant alongwith co‑accused Imamuddin have been sent up for trial for offence under section 364/34, P.P.C. for having killed one Riaz after abducting him. Co‑accused Imamuddin has already been granted bail by Mr. Justice Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, by order dated 2‑1‑1985 on the ground that there was no evidence in the case except of last seen and extra‑judicial confession of Mohammad Hussain.
So far as the applicant Mohammad Husain, is concerned his case is at par with that of the Imamuddin who has already been granted bail. The only evidence against him is that he made exculpatory extra‑judicial confession to the effect that Imamuddin had killed Riaz. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kazi Pervez and others v. The State P L D 1976 Kar. 583 that self exculpatory confession cannot be considered as confession and that it is hardly of any value even against the maker thereof.
Reliance has also been placed on the case of Nazar Muhammad v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1678 in which it has been held that there being no other evidence against the accused except of last seen and extra‑judicial confession, the accused was entitled to bail.
In view of the above decisions Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed has not objected to the grant of bail. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Only evidence is that he made exculpatory confession before the witnesses and that he was last seen with the deceased. In view of the decisions, cited above the case of the applicant is one of further enquiry. The application is allowed. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the amount of Rs.50,000 and P.R. in like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
M. Y. H. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer