' Applicant, Shaukat, is being tried alongwith co-accused Shareef, Master Dhani Bux and Mohan for the offences under sections 342, 556, 377, 292, 109 and 504, P. P. C. The case is pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Sanghar.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 22nd February, 1984 at 4-30 p.m. One Jairamdas lodged a report at Police Station, Sanghar, in which he stated that about 8/9 months back he went to attend a function in his school where some photographs of that function were taken by co-accused Shareef of Ameer Photo Studio, Sanghar. After a week he went to Ameer Photo Studio and demanded photographs from Shareef and at that time Shaukat son of Bauxan Rojani, Master Dhani Bux son of Allah Ditto Tehlani and Mohan son of Jagumal were present, Photographer Shareef took him into the dark room of studio for giving him photographs whereafter Shaukat, Master Dhani Bux and Mohan closed the door. In the dark room Shareef undressed him and took out a knife and then committed carnal intercourse while Shaukat, Dhani Bux and Mohan witnessed the entire affairs. He has also stated in the F. I. R. That Shareef had also drawn his naked photograph, and thereafter one Majeed Gujar came in the studio who was also made naked and Master Dhani Bux committed carnal intercourse with him in his presence. Shareef also had drawn naked photos of Majeed Gujar too. They all threatened him not to disclose anything about this matter otherwise he will be killed and defamed in the town. He due to fear did not disclose this fact to any body. Thereafter, Shareef, Shaukat, Master Dhani Bux and Mohan oftenly used to come at his cabin and extorted money from him showing his naked photographs. On 22nd February, 1984 at evening time while he was sitting at his cabin alongwith his elder brother Jetha Nand and cousin Tejumal, where Shaukat, Shareef, Master Dhani Bux and Mohan came and demanded money. He replied that he has no money and his brother and cousin were sitting, therefore, they should go back. Whereupon, they started abusing him and threatened him that they will distribute his naked photographs which were available with Shareef. On enquiry he started weeping and narrated the whole story to his brother and cousin. They also saw those photographs. He went to police station and lodged F.I.R. Police after investigation, arrested the applicant and co-accused. The case is pending in the trial Court.
3. Mr. Allah Dino G. Memon, Advocate appearing for the applicant, has contended that the applicant is a student and is of tender age and his birth date is shown in School Leaving Certificate as 5th February, 1969, and no overt act has been artributed to him and that he has not committed carnal intercourse with the complainant. He has submitted that there is a delay of 8/9 months in lodging F.I.R. Therefore, this case requires further enquiry.
4. Mr. Sattar A. Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed the above bail application and has stated that the applicant alongwith co- accused have been all along black-mailing the complainant and were extorting money and finally circumstances compelled the complainant to lodge report, therefore, the delay has properly been explained. He submitted that the applicant is a member of a gang which has been playing with the moral character of young boys, therefore, he does not deserve to be released on bail. He has also placed naked photographs of the victims and actually in one photo Master Dhani Bux is shown committing sodomy on a boy, namely, Majeed Gujar, and I am shocked to see these naked photographs which are available in the police papers.
5. The complainant is also a Matric student of Government High School, Sanghar, P.W. Majid Gujar, a boy was also implicated the applicant. No enmity whatsoever was shown or proved with the applicant. I do not agree with the contention of Mr. Allah Dino G. Memon that no overt act has been attributed in the circumstances that applicant had closed the door and alongwith other accused was standing as guard and witnessing the incident and then he alongwith other accused was extorting money from the complainant. I am not inclined to consider the case of the applicant on the ground of age because he has left the school and is no more student.
' One cannot ignore the surrounding circumstances of the offence being committed by the teenagers. On this point I refer a case reported in 1983 SCM R 791 in which their Lordships have observed as under :- "After examining the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was not at all a fit case for the grant of bail. It is true that if an accused person is below the age of 16 years, the Court has a discretion to allow bail even in a case punishable with death or transportation for life, but while exercising this discretion, the attendant circumstances of the crime cannot be lost sight of. In the instant case we find that according to the allegations made by the prosecution it was the respondent who opened the attack on the deceased who was an elderly man, and fired several shots at him from a revolver. The circumstance that he might have acted under the influence of the older co-accused Liaqat does not appear to have any bearing on the respondent's culpability.
We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and cancel the to the respondent. He shall be taken into custody and remanded to the judicial lock up for the duration of the trial."
I, therefore, do not feel proper to exercise discretion of grant of bail in favour of the applicant, a member of the gang who are playing with moral character of innocent boys and then extorting money from them.
' Application having no merits, is dismissed. .