ORDERRANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD, J.- This petition has been filed under section 497/CrJ>.C. Seeking the post arrest bail in case FIR No.179/93 dated 8.5.1993 registered under section 302 PPC at Police Station, Kotwali District Gujranwala at the instance of Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Qadir for an occurrence which took place on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. In the area of Bazar Hajipura.
2. The brief facts as narrated by the complainant are; that on 8.5.1993 at about 530 pm. He along with Muhammad Tariq and Tahir Pervaiz was sitting in front of the office of Golden Victory School.
His son Farrukh Dar came out from the shop in order to proceed towards his house. Muhammad Umar Farooq, petitioner herein, armed with chhuri hurredly came from the side of Bazar Hajipura and launched a murderous attack on Farrukh Dar and gave a chhuri blow which landed on the waist line of the deceased who fell on the ground and the accused decamped from the place of occurrence. Farrukh Dar succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
3. The bail after arrest was moved and the same was declined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide his order dated 4.9.1994.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner seeks bail after arrest on the ground that firstly the petitioner at the time of occurrence was minor and his case falls under the first proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C.; secondly, this is an un-seen murder as the father and the first cousins of the deceased were present at the spot and could not over-power the accused person, who was minor. Had they been present at the place of occurrence the accused would have been caught red handed. It indicates that they were not present at the spot; thirdly, the result of his matriculation examination was declared when he was arrested in the above said crime. He wants to study further which shall be suffered if he is not bailed out.
5. Conversely the bail petition was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner committed a very heinous crime. It is a day light murder and the prosecution story is supported by the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.
6. I have heard the learned counsellor the parties at full length and have also perused the record.
7. The birth certificate of the petitioner attached with the petition indicates his date of birth as 21.2.1977 and at the time of occurrence his age was hardly 16 years but a minor cannot be given a licence to commit the murder and to get the benefit of this proviso as this cannot be the intention of the law makers especially for a minor like the petitioner against whom previously a case FIR No.343/92 dated 22.12.1992 under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance No. XX of 1965 was registered, a revolver and live cartridges were recovered from his possession and he was arrested n the above said case on the same day and subsequently was bailed out. In this view of the matter, the minority of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the bail petition at this stage of the case because the repetition of the crime cannot be excluded if he is allowed bail. The challan is submitted in the Court. He is the single accused person in this crime. It is a day light minder, recovery was effected on his pointation and the report of the Chemical Examiner is positive. The case is fixed for evidence for 23.1.1995 before the learned trial Court.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not incline to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage of the case. The bail petition fails and is dismissed.