1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has wrongly been involved in this case as there is no proper evidence against him. He submits that there was some other incident and F.I.R. In respect to the procurement of the Kachi Sharab in F.I.R.
2. No, 97/2009 was registered on 11-4-2009. In the said F.I.R. The name of Pervez alias Bhora has also been mentioned and not of the applicant. He submits that there is no connecting material to involve the applicant and that the applicant was minor at the time of incident as his date of birth is 2-5-1991 as per Birth Certificate issued by the NADRA while School Leaving Certificate also confirms the date of birth. He submits that even one day to majority will make a difference while applicant at the time of alleged incident was seventeen years and ten months old. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Kar 18. Learned counsel has .Further submitted that this is an action, which has been taken by the police on the information of some report from the Civil Hospital while material witnesses are not available.
3. ' Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that witnesses in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have taken the name of the applicant, therefore, bail application may be dismissed.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel, it has been assessed from the file and police papers that apparently age of the accused is less than eighteen years and he can be termed as a Juvenile while in the earlier F.I.R, which was under sections 3 and 4, has been registered against one person and not against the applicant. There is no direct evidence to show that the applicant was in the chain, which was procuring and selling that Katchi Sharab and factual position needs further investigation.
5. ' Keeping in view age of the applicant and other material, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety A in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.