' MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner/accused has been booked for the above offences vide FIR No, 14/16 registered at police station Danyore on 16.04.2016 vide FIR No, 15/16 under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case as highlighted in the FIR are on the eventful day the complainant who is posted as SIP in Police Station Danyore received an information that two real brothers (now deceased) quarreled with each other and are seriously injured. On receipt of this information the complainant rushed to the place of occurrence and on reaching the spot, he came to know that a dispute regarding partition of ancestral land was going between the two brothers and On the day of occurrence, while erecting a boundary wall, the incident took place. As per story of FIR deceased Sher Wali took out a pistol and fired at Lal Mast, which hit on his chest and he fell down on the ground. In the meanwhile Danish Haider son of Lal Mast started indiscriminate firing on the deceased Sher Wali, who also sustained serious fire-arm injuries. Both the injured persons were moved to hospital, where they breathed their last.
3. The petitioner/accused filed a bail application before the learned trial Court which was refused vide judgment/order dated 30.05.2016 and being aggrieved from the order of trial Court, the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted at bar that the petitioner is a juvenile offender and his case falls within the exception of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., which entitles him for the grant of bail. The learned counsel further contended that the FIR has been lodged after preliminary investigations and none of the eye-witnesses have been mentioned in the FIR. Per learned counsel even if the contents of FIR are accepted as correct, the case is one of sudden and grave provocation, which tilts heavily in favour of the petitioner for grant of bail.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.G, refuted the arguments of learned defence counsel and stated at bar that, it was a pre-meditated murder as the petitioner/accused came duly armed at the place of occurrence and took life of his real uncle, over a petty matter, as he was taking some stone from a fallen boundary wall. The learned Dy. A.G, further contended that the petitioner/accused was arrested on 23.4.2016 and weapon of offence, a .30 bore pistol has been recovered on his pointation on 27.4.2016. Per learned Dy. A.G, the petitioner/accused is prima facie connected with the crime, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard the parties at length and gone through the relevant record. The petitioner/accused is directly charged in the FIR with specific attribution of opening fatal shots on his real uncle deceased Sher Wali. He came duly equipped with the weapon of offence at the place of occurrence, which shows his ill design and intention to commit murder of deceased. The learned counsel agitated the ground of juvenility before this Court but no supporting documents were appended with the file in support thereof. A ground if not taken in bail application could be agitated at the time of arguments but in the case in hand, since the ground of juvenility has been pressed first time before this Court without agitating the same before the learned trial Court and the opposite party having no knowledge of such plea, the same cannot be considered at this stage, especially when not a single document showing the age of petitioner/accused is available on file.
7. The weapon of offence a .30 bore pistol has been recovered from the petitioner and same has been sent to forensic expert for expert opinion. The postmortem report of deceased Sher Wali is also available on file, which further corroborates the factum of death by fire-arm injuries.
8. There is sufficient incriminating material available on record, which prima facie connects the petitioner/accused with the crime, and when a prima facie case is established from tentative assessm ent of evidence, discretion for grant of bail is normally not exercised in the cases entailing capital punishment.
9. The result of above discussions is that the petition is declined being meritless.