1. ' The case against the applicant Shaman, Nazir and others is pending under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. In the Court of Sessions Judge, Dadu for trial. Their bail application has been rejected by the trial Court.
3. ' Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that Ghulam Muhammad is reporter of daily newspaper, 'Aftab', for Sub-Division, Dadu while his brother Ahmad Khan was reporter of 'Mashriq, Karachi. They both are resident of village Ramzan Khuhro near Phulji station. On 23-5-1984 at 6-30 p.m. Ghulam Muhammad heard gun firing while he was in the house. He rushed towards that direction and saw Khair Muhammad, Nazir Panhwar, Shaman Chandio and Asghar who were raising slogans. It is further stated that above-named accused persons except Asghar were armed with guns. Ghulam Muhammad saw that his brother Ahmad Khan was lying dead on the road and had gunshot injuries. At that place Dost Muhammad, Amir Bux and Sikandar were standing and they informed him that applicants Nazir and Shaman directly fired at deceased Ahmad Khan while Khair Muhammad fired in the air. They further disclosed that accused told deceased that he was publishing false reports against them, therefore, they would not spare him. Ghulam Muhammad went and lodged report at Police Post Phulji on the same day at 7-00 p.m.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo learned counsel has contended that applicants have been involved due to enmity and entire evidence consists of interested witnesses. He has also argued that applicant Shaman is student of B. Corn. And he is 17 years old. Mr. Junejo has cited a case Sirajuddin v. Saghiruddin alias Goga and others 1970 SCMR 30, where their Lordships have held that ball may be granted even in a case of capital offence when the age of accused on X-Ray examination is between 16-17 years. In the above-referred case the bail was grantedby High Court but a cancellation application seems to have been moved which was dismissed by their Lordships.
5. Mr. Hayat Junejo has contended that co-accused Khair Muhammad has also been admitted to bail and during investigation it was found that co-accused Asghar was innocent and incorrectly involved. Mr. Tlayat Junejo has also argued that medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony as only one shot seems to have been fired at the deceased.
6. ' Mr.A bdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State has opposed the bail application and argued that both applicants were armed with guns and have fired at the deceased and daylight murder.
7. ' There is specific allegation against the applicants Nazir and Shaman that they fired gunshots at Ahmad Khan. The medical evidence show that deceased had received following injuries on his person:- "Injuries:- (1)Five gunshot wounds with 8 mm in diameter (circular) margins of the wounds inverted on the front of left upper arm (wounds of entry).
8. (2)Four gun shot wounds with 8 mm in diameter margins inverted on the left front of the chest." ' and death was caused due to the injuries mentioned above as such at this stage it cannot be said when doctor has not been examined that there is a conflict between the medical and ocular testimony. So far next contention of Mr. Hayat Junejo is concerned I refer to a case of Shahbaz Tufail v. The State 1978 SCMR 235 where their Lordships have observed that under the proviso of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P.C. It is not open to a person to claim bail as of right .Just because he was under age and the application in that case was dismissed. In another case Kanwar Imamuddin v. Muhammad - Rafique and others 1983 SCMR 791 their Lordships cancelled the bail granted to the accused and 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.
9. We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and cancel the bail granted to the respondent. He shall be taken into custody and remanded to the judicial lock up for duration of the trial."
10. ' I also refer to a case of Muhammad Arshad and 2 others v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 931 where it has been observed that mere fact the petitioners are students is no good ground to release them on bail and same view has also been taken in a case reported in 1984 PCr.LJ 1003 where it has been observed that accused though students but committed heinous offence are not entitled to be released on bail and a reference could have been made to a case reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 177.
11. ' As regards third contention of Mr.Muhammad Hayat Junejo, that the name of the co-accused Asghar is shown in column No,2 of the challan Khair Muhammad has been allowed bail. I refer to a case of Muhammad Sarwar v. The State 1982 SCMR 25 where their Lordships have held that benefit of doubt cannot be given to accused simply on account of his co-accused having been found innocent and that accused who is main accused and named in the F.I.R. And attributed fire shot on the vital part of the body of the deceased his bail application was rejected in the circumstances. The allegation against Khair Muhammad who is on bail is that he fired in the air.
12. Therefore, the case of the present applicants is distinguishable.
13. ' For the above reasons I am not inclined to consider even the case of Shaman because there is specific allegation and Mr.Abdul Sattar Shaikh also pointed out that crime weapons have also been recovered from the applicants. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.