' Accused Taj Muhammad is involved in a child lifting case. He had allegedly on 19-11-1990 at 4-30 p.m. Kidnapped a small boy, namely, Ahsan aged 4/5 years from Havelian Bazar. The child was afterwards brought to Abbottabad and kept under illegal confinement for a week in the house of one Mst. Resham Jan. The accused during all this time wrote letters and administered threats on telephone to the relatives of the minor for heavy ransom. In view of hectic efforts made in search of the kidnapee by his relatives and on information furnished by a shopkeeper from Malikpura (Abbottabad), in whose shop a public call office is installed and from where the accused used to contact the uncle of the kidnapee on telephone and demanded ransom, the accused was forced to let loose the boy in front of his house. A report was earlier lodged on 21-11-1990 at P.S. Havelian by Abdul Latif the grandfather of the child wherein he charged Taj Muhammad accused by name. The accused after his arrest made a judicial confession on 4-12-1990.
2. The learned defence counsel has mostly based his arguments for the release of the accused on bail on age ground. It is stated that the accused who is a 9th Class student was below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. According to the School certificate his date of birth is 6-2-1975 and he was under 16 years by two and a half months on the date of the incident. The accused at his request was referred for examination to a Medical Board for age purpose. The report received shows, that a Radiologist at D.H.Q. Hospital, Abbottabad examined the accused and found his bone age at 14 years. This report which is countersigned by the Medical Superintendent does not indicate, as to whether any Board had been constituted at all and how many doctors had participated in the proceedings of the Board as members. I, therefore, do not see this report confidence inspiring and fit for reliance.
3. Be this as it may, although age under 16 years has often been considered good ground for the grant of bail to juvenile offenders, but in view of the heinous B nature and attending circumstances of this case, I would not be inclined to exercise my discretion in the enlargement of the accused on bail by extending him benefit of first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The investigating agency shall be however directed to complete investigation and put challan in Court against the accused in shortest possible time. The petition is dismissed.