1. IRFAN SADAT KHAN, J. - The applicant is facing trial before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West in Crime No. 169/2010 under Sections 302/34, P.P.C. Lodged at PS Docks, Karachi. The complainant moved an application seeking before the Trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2010. Hence this bail plea.
2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 13.5.2Q10 the complainant lodged an F.I.R. At the above P.S. To the effect that at about 2330 hours on .12.5.2010, while he was watching KESC people working on an electric pole near Shakir Wali Gali, his maternal cousin informed him that his father was fired upon and was lying in injured condition at Shakir Wali Gali. He rushed to the place of incident and found his father in injured condition. He took him to Civil Hospital where he expired during operation. He was informed that Abdul Sattar son of Abul Hasan, Shakoor son of Abdul Karim and two unknown persons fired at his father due to old enmity due to which his father expired.
3. Accordingly the above F.I.R. Was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. The applicant/accused has only been named as an accomplice but without any overt act. He also referred to the statements of the witnesses and stated that it is evident therefrom that it was Abdul Karim who is stated to have fired at the deceased and the crime weapon was also recovered from his custody. It is also submitted at the time of the offence the applicant was only 16 years, 4 months and 26 days old and was not previously involved in any other crime.
5. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on the following cases:-
(1) Imam Bakhsh and another v. The State (2007 YLR 1733),
(2) Nisar Ahmed and another v. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J. 652),
(3) Ansar Shah v. The State (2004 YLR 2262), and
(4) Abdul Ghaffar v. The State (NLR 2004 Criminal 333).
6. Mr. Saifullah, learned counsel for the complainant, refuted the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and stated that the applicant has been specifically named in the F.I.R. He submitted that all the persons named in the F.I.R. Came with the common intention to kill the deceased and hence the present applicant deserves to be treated at par with the main accused and invited my attention to Section 34, P.P.C. He further submitted that under Section 10(7)(a) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2002 no relief could be given to the applicant.
7. Learned APG adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the APG and have perused the record and the case- law cited before me.
9. It is observed that neither any crime weapon has been recovered from the applicant nor any specific role has been assigned to him. The eye-witnesses have specifically mentioned that it was Abdul Sattar who fired at the deceased. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was present alongwith other co-accused but no specific role or overt act has been assigned to him.
10. In view of the above-narrated facts, this is a case of further inquiry and the learned counsel has been able to make out a case for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is accepted and the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.
11. 200,000/- with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.