ORDER S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. - Through this petition after arrest bail is sought in case F.I.R. No. 415/2006, dated 11.11.2006 registered under Sections 302, 109, P.P.C, at Police Station Sadar Mian Channu, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly, the petitioner armed with Chhurri caused injury to Muhammad Asghar Ali, on the instigation of his co-accused Abdul Khaliq. The case was registered on 1 the statement of one Allah Ditta. The petitioner at the time of attacked was hiding himself in the sugarcane crop at about 1.00 p.m. And he in view of complainant, Muhammad Akram and Zafar Hussain petitioner Sajjad Hussain gave a Chhurri blow on the body of Asghar Ali, hitting on his right chest below rib and the accused ran away with his weapon. Asghar Ali took his last breath at spot. Alleged motive in the occurrence is a dispute of the agricultural land inter se complainant and father of accused.
Second part of the motive is that the sister of petitioner was engaged with deceased which resulted into failure.
3. it is argued that the accused is attributed only one blow of Chhurri and the blow has not been repeated. That the F.I.R, reveals that petitioner has caused only one blow while the post-mortem of Asghar Ali reveals that there were three incise wound on his body. On the basis of this contradiction, learned counsel argued that, had the witnesses seen the occurrence, they would have given the account of three injuries, it reveals that the witnesses are deposing falsely and they have not seen the occurrence, therefore, they could not give the correct count of injuries. That the accused is in jail from the last 11/4 years, whereas he is juvenile and first offender. That the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.
4. Learned D.P.G, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail pleas raised that it is broad daylight occurrence. Motive is strong, recovery has been effected trial is in progress and the deeper appreciation of the evidence is not possible.
5. Heard.
6. I have gone through the F.I.R, only one Chhurri blow is attributed to petitioner on the right side of chest near the rib, whereas in the post-mortem report there are three injuries. Although the seat of injury No. 1 is the same going deep towards the right chest cavity on the front of right chest but in the F.I.R, not mentioned the injuries Nos. 2 and 3 by whom inflicted. On this point it is clear that ocular account is not in consonance with post-mortem report. I also observed that the remaining injuries has not been attributed to any other accused, therefore, it is prima facie a conflict of ocular account with the post-mortem report and the injuries on the body of the deceased. That the occurrence has taken place at the instigation of one Abdul Khaliq, son of Ghulam Muhammad a real uncle of the accused who has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.5.2007 by this Court.
The petitioner as a result of enquiry has been held juvenile and his age has been assessed as 15 to 16 years and is facing trial under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He is in jail from the last about 16 months, as the information provided by the learned DPG and the age of the petitioner at the time of occurrence was in between 15 to 16 years, it has not been challenged. Although under the proviso of the Ordinance under Section 10(7) the bail can be refused if the child of 15 years or above has committed a heinous gruesome brutal sensationally in character or shocking to public morality any offence which would be punishable with death or imprisonment for life. After going through provided section, and as the witnesses have alleged only one blow of Chhuri. They have allegedly seen it in the daylight but the deceased suffered three injuries with the same kind of weapon. On this point that if the witnesses have correctly seen to the accused within their view to have cause single blow, but remaining injuries were not seen by them. This conflict is of material nature and veracity and credibility is to adjudged it trust or not. The learned Trial Court still has to consume substantial period to conclude the trial. The petitioner as alleged in F.I.R, has not repeated the blow, In my view the matter requires further inquiry, and he is entitle for bail. He is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- or with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.