ORDER IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY, C.J.- Criminal case FIR No. 388, dated 3.8.2004 was registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha for offence under section 302/34, PPC on the report of Muhammad Riaz. According to complainant his son Muhammad ljaz after taking evening meal went to the house of Muhammad Nawaz-co-villager. His son did not return home for quite some time whereafter, he went to the house of Muhammad Nawaz. The complainant was informed that at about 10.00 p.m. Manaazar Ali (petitioner) and Muhammad Afzaal had taken him away on the pretext that they had some business with him. The complainant, thereafter, alongwith Muhammad Nawaz, * Bashir Ahmad covillager went to the house of Manaazar and saw that Manaazar Ali armed with 12-bore shotgun, Muhammad Afzaal empty handed, and Muhammad armed with 12- bore shotgun had caught hold of Muhammad ljaz and were quarrelling with him. In their view Muhammad Afzaal and Muhammad accused caught hold of Muhammad ljaz while Manaazar Ali fired shot with 12-bore shotgun which hit Muhammad Ijaz on his head. Muhammad Ijaz died at the spot.
Motive for the incident was stated to be that a few days back Manaazar Ali had quarreled with Muhammad ljaz over payment of money with regard to sale of oil and Manaazar Ali was insulted by his son due to which grievance the accused shot his son to death.
10. Manaazar Ali was arrested on 29.8.2004 in the case and submitted present petitioner for grant of post-arrest bail.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the course of investigation, the Police concluded that occurrence had not taken place in the manner as was alleged by the complainant.
According to learned counsel the deceased had gone in the house of the petitioner on account of illicit intimacy with a female of that house and he was shot at and had lost life in that back-ground, it was submitted that petitioner was a minor and his case would fall under section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code, 186 fend that this being not a case of Qisas, petitioner deserved the concession of bail, especially when he was behind the bars since 29.8.2004.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submitted that deceased died in the house of petitioner and petitioner did not lead any evidence before the Investigating Agency that deceased was done to death by a person other than the petitioner and practically the role played by the petitioner was admitted by the defence itself, it was submitted that in case the petitioner was proved to be a minor he might get some leniency in the matter of sentence but this was n6t a case of acquittal under any circumstances and petitioner as such did not deserve the concession of bail, it was submitted that petitioner was challaned to Court and trial in the case would have been concluded by this time but accused recoursed to delaying tactics and did not allow the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case and as such petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail on the ground that he was behind the bars for a period exceeding one year, which according to learned counsel, otherwise, was not a ground for grant of bail in a murder case. Leamed counsel for State also opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that material on record sufficiently connected the petitioner with the commission of offence.
13. The incident in this case took place in the house of the petitioner. Deceased was shot to. Death in the house of petitioner. The defence did not offer any plausible explanation as to how deceased died or as to who was the person other than the petitioner who had shot the deceased to death.
The material on record shows that petitioner is duly connected with the commission of a non- bailable offence and as such he does not deserve the concession of bail.
14. Petitioner claims that he was minor at the time of incident. The minority of accused might give certain benefit ip petitioner-accused in the matter of sentence only. The case of the defence does not show that case of the petitioner was that of further inquiry as regards his guilt.
15. Petitioner submitted an application before the Trial Court claiming that he was Juvenile and should be tried as such. This petition was filed 11 months' back and so far has not been disposed of by the Trial Court. If has not been disputed by the learned counsel that this petition could not be decided on account of conduct of the petitioner or the defence counsel who get on seeking un- necessary adjournments in the case.
16. The petitioner's case in hardly of grant of bail from what angle it might be seen. Application, therefore, is dismissed.
17. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhalwal/Trial Court shall decide the application submitted by the petitioner where-by he sought his trial as a Juvenile within one month from today and thereafter, proceed with the trial and to conclude it by an early date.