1. ' This bail application has been moved on behalf of the present applicant who is involved in Crime No,140 of 1995 registered at Police Station Gull Bahar Karachi under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' The applicant applied for bail but his bail application was rejected on 4-6-1995 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central (Mr. Muhammad Saghir Rana) in Sessions Case No,289 of 1995. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Syed Khawar Ali wherein he alleged that he is occupant of first floor House No,3/1, I-D, Nazimabad-1, Karachi and on the ground floor tenant Ali Patel used to reside. On 1-5-1995 at about 1-30 p.m. While the complainant was in his house along with his family members and on the ground floor tenant Ali Patel was shifting his luggage after performing Soyam ceremony of his deceased wife and for that purpose the gate was kept open when all of a sudden three accused persons namely Imran son of Abdul Razzaq, Zeeshan son of Rais Ahmed and Kamran son of Shakil Ahmed duly armed with pistols entered the house and after extending threats of murder they removed/ snatched wrist watches and gold ornaments from the wife and daughters of the complainant as well as from the Almirah. They also deprived the complainant of prize bond worth of Rs,2,92,000 and 1400 U.S. $ and ornaments and cash etc. Then the three culprits tried to leave the place of incident but in the meanwhile on telephonic information of Muhallah people Inspector Muhammad Nawaz Ranjha, S.H.O. Police Station Gul Bahar along with his staff reached there in police mobiles and in the presence of Mashirs he managed to arrest all three of them. He also seized T.T. Pistols as well as the robbed property. Thereafter the accused and the property were brought at the police station. After due investigation the present applicant was remanded to Juvenile Jail Karachi.
3. ' I have heard Mr. M. Shafi Khan learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Syed Amjad Ali Shah learned A.A.-G. For-the State. The latter has opposed the bail application.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant mainly urged that he would press for bail only on the point of minority of the applicant/accused. According to him the applicant/accused is below 16 years of age which is evident from the school leaving certificate as well as the admit card therefore, being a minor he is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the applicant cited Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1983 SCM R 1001. In this bail order the petitioner who was involved in a murder case was below 16 years of age at the time of incident but his bail application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the ground that according to the police report the petitioner was 19 years of age. The Honorable Supreme Court held that this was not a sound ground for rejecting the plea submitted on behalf of the petitioner and he was allowed bail. With utmost respect it is humbly submitted that the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is discretion of the High Court to grant or not to grant bail on the ground of age. Furthermore bail cannot be claimed as a matter of rights on account of tender age. Prima facie, there is ample evidence to connect the applicant/accused with the alleged offence. Acting as a dare devil he along with the two co-accused in broad daylight armed with weapons entered into the house of the complainant to commit a heinous offence. Commission of such serious offences has become very common particularly in urban areas like Karachi city. These are the facts of life which Court cannot lose sight of and strict view of such happenings is required to be taken by the Courts of this Province. According to the F.I.R. The complainant had only recently retired as Quality Controller from Sea Man Company (Pak.) Limited and Ali Patel the tenant on the ground floor was still mourning the sad demise of his wife when taking advantage of the open gate the accused managed to trespass into the house and by show of force deprived the complainant of his lifelong savings but were nabbed on the spot as is clearly evident from a tentative assessment of the evidence collected by the prosecution, therefore, at this stage I am not prepared to take a lenient view.
5. ' Accordingly this bail application having no merit is liable to be dismissed. The bail order passed by the learned trial Court require no interference. Order accordingly.