1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-The case of the prosecution in brief is that petitioner armed with a stick along with his three co-accused namely Munir armed with pistol, Ashiq with gun and Rehmat with hatchet went together and attacked Muhammad Amin deceased while he was still asleep in front of his shop. They surrounded his cot and shot him dead at the spot. Thereafter, it is alleged, the accused took out money from the pocket of the deceased and then fled away from the spot.
2. The petitioner and two of his co-accused namely Ashiq and Rehmat applied for bail in the case registered against them under section 302/34, P. P. C. At Police Station Renala Khurd. On the 2nd of October, 1976 the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, allowed bail to Ashiq on the ground that he was a minor below 15 years of age at the time and the bail application of Iqbal petitioner and Rehmat co-accused was rejected by him.
3. Iqbal petitioner alone went up to the High Court for bail but his petition was likewise dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 28th of January, 1977. He observed that in the F. I. R. It was clearly stated that the petitioner and his co-accused variously armed had gone to the shop of the deceased at dead of the night and one of them had fired at him as a result of which he died instantaneously. These allegations, in the opinion of the High Court, showed prima facie that the accused were acting in pre-concert and were liable under section 34, P. P. C. It was also pointed out that in so far as the petitioner was concerned he was not only armed with a stick but also participated in taking out the money of the deceased.
4. In these circumstances the petitioner has moved the above petition for special leave to appeal from the order passed by the High Court refusing bail to him.
5. It is no doubt true that he was allegedly armed with a stick and that n injury with a blunt weapon attributed to him was found on the body of the deceased. But that circumstance alone does not necessarily exculpate him. From the F. I. R. It appears that accused acted in pre-concert and the petitioner was also assigned the active role of having taken out the money from the pocket of the deceased after he had been shot dead at the spot. He was major about 17/18 years of age at the time and is not entitled to the bail on they ground of age. The likely delay in the trial of this case by itself is no ground for enlarging him on bail.
6. This petition has no force and is dismissed.