' The petitioners are involved in a case under section 302/392/34, P. P. C. The F.
1. R. Was lodged at t-00 a. m. On 28-7-75, to the effect that the complainant while on his way saw an injured person lying near Kacha Kuoch Vehari Road which appeared to be a dead body. The complainant went to his Chak and brought another person and saw that the dead body was that of Nazir Ahmad, Pinsal Navees, Nehr Pakpattan Pull 24, W. B. The blood had flowed from the lower portion of the body. After recording the F.
1. R., the Police authorities started investigation. No trace of the culprits was found until 1-8-1975 when one Najabat, Lambardar Chak No, 09 W. B. Brought one Taj Mohammad. The later stated that he was going with Nazir Ahmad on the later's motor-cycle sitting behind him and when they reached near the place of occurrence at about 10-30. p.m. He saw that a rope was hung to stop the traffic and Abdul Sattar and Mohammad Ramzan (petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) were standing near the rope and as soon as Nazir Ahmad deceased stopped the motor-cycle, four other persons emerged whose names were Rashid (petitioner No, 3), Riaz Akbar, Sadaqat and Bashir. The three petitioners and one Riaz Akbar their co-accused were arrested after about two months. From Abdul Sattar was recovered, Scooter, from Ramzan a watch, from Rashid a pistol and from Riaz Mbar a motor-cycle. It is stated by the Investigating Officer that the motor-cycle was registered in the name of the deceased Nazir Ahmad. Sadaqat and Bashir are still absconding and have not yet been arrested. Sardar and Ahmad appeared before the Investigating Officer and stated that they had seen the six accused before the occurrence near the spot. Latif Shah, Jan Mohammad, Najab Ali and Allah Bacbaya stated before the investigating Agency that the six accused had made extra-judicial confessions before them. Abdul Sattar, Mohammad Ramzan and Rashid applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge but their application was dismissed on 11.6-1976, They have come up to this Court for bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Abdul Sattar and Mohammad Raman were about 15 and 14 years respectively at the time of occurrence. They being under 16 years are entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of Cr. P. C. It is, next contended that it was blind murder and there is no way of saying that these petitioners and their co-petitioner Rashid, petitioner No, 3, were involved in this case. Further, that there was no motive for the petitioners to have committed the crime,. Learned counsel has referred to Sikandar Maya: v. The State (1) on the point that when accused is below the age of 16 years, he may be released on bail. He has also referred to Liaqat Ali etc. v. The Stare (2) for the proposition the solitary witness Taj Mohammad who appeared before the Investigating Agency after four days could not be relied upon and in similar circumstances in the above-mentioned case, the accused were allowed bail and so the petitioners should be.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and given most of the facts mentioned above. The Investigating Officer has also produced the record.
4. The Investigating Agency has collected material against the petitioners in so far as that raj Mohammad bad said that he was sitting on the motor-cycle behind the deceased Muir Ahmed when they were waylaid, he identified the first two petitioners as standing near the rope meant for stopping the traffic and the other accused, including Rashid, to be emerging, from nearly to the scene of occurrence. He has stated about the manner in which the deceased was murdered, his motor-cycle was robbed and the accused made good their escape. Two other persons Sardar and Ahmad have stated that they had seen the accused persons including the three petitioners I immediately before the occurrence. Four persons have also deposed that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before them Recoveries have been made from the petitioners and a Sootri Watch and pistol have been recovered respectively. In the circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners has naturally repudiated all the material collected; by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner. However, in the present of such an overwhelming material, it would be prepostrous to release the accused on bail who had apparently committed murder and highway robbery.
5. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first two petitioners are minors, it is true that from the School Leaving Certificates, it appears that the petitioners were under the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence but that fact by itself is not enough try release the accused persons on bail, if they had been active participants in the crime.. The two accused petitioners i,e, and 2 were seen by two witnesses to be standing with the rope for the purpose of stopping the traffic, and the deceased had to stop his motor-cycle. The recoveries have also been mad from them. There is an eye-witness account and there are four witnesses, about the extra- judicial confession. The mere fact of age of persons being less than 16 years is no licence for committing a crime of murder and highway robbery. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the two petitioners in spite of their age being less than 16 years at the time of occurrence are not entitled to bail. As regards the petitioner No, 3, this ground neither available nor urged. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the murder was a blind murder and the evidence collected against the petitioner is not sufficient to warrant their conviction {{FOOT NOTE}} revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.