Nadeem Mustafa

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. __________/2002 In Crl. Appeal No.71/2000 M. Nadeem Mustafa etc.

Vs.

The State.

Application U/s 426 (1) & (1-A) (C) Cr.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the applicant Shakil Ahmad along-with Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa was charged under section 302/365-A/34 P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No. 209/96 dated 21.10.1996 registered at police station Qutab Pur (Multan.)

2.

That during the trial, charge under section 302 could not be proved, however, the applicant and co-accused Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa were convicted vide judgment dated 17.1.2000 under section 365-A P.P.C., and the punishment of life imprisonment was awarded along-with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from each under section 544-A Cr.P.C. The above-titled appeal was preferred against the judgment by both the convicted persons, which is pending in this Hon’ble Court.

3.

That the applicant is entitled to be released on bail inter alia on the following: -

GROUNDS a)

That the impugned judgment is a result of non-reading and misreading of the evidence.

b)

That the prosecution did not bring cogent with evidence against the accused persons. Whole the case of the prosecution is based upon the extra-judicial confession of the accused persons, which is the weakest type of evidence in the eyes of law. The extra-judicial confession, which was brought upon the file by the prosecution, is a joint admission. The same is otherwise not admissible in evidence. Such statement has no legal sanctity and could not be a base for the conviction.

c)

That there are material discrepancies and improvements in the statement of prosecution evidence and the benefit of all these things was not extended to the accused persons.

d)

That the P.W.’s No. 7 & 8 are the witnesses for the extra-judicial confession. They along-with the P.W.’s No. 4 & 5 unanimously admitted that it was the joint confessional statement of the accused persons before all of them.

e)

That the best evidence (expert, mother of alleged deceased), which can be produced by the prosecution, was with-held and the law in this regard favours the accused persons but the learned Trial Court does not emphasise upon the case from this angle.

f)

That the statement made by the accused persons must be placed in juxt-a-position along-with the prosecution evidence but the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its legal duty to compare the both and then sort out the truth.

g)

That the above-titled appeal is pending in this Hon’ble Court for more than two years. There are no chances for the hearing of this appeal and under the law a right for the release of the applicant on bail is accrued. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the applicant may graciously be released on bail till the final disposal of the titled appeal. Humble appellant,

Dated: _________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first application on the subject matter. No such application has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate