1. SAIDUZZMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Leave is sought by the petitioner in the above case against the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 21-9-1994 whereby a learned Judge in chambers admitted Muhammad Aamer, respondent, to bail in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C on the sole ground of minority.
2. In seeking leave to appeal against the order of learned Judge of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following observations in the case Imam Din v.
3. Muhammad Rafique etc. (1983 SCM R 791):-- "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.
4. 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 the duration of the trial. "
5. It is contended by the learned counsel that mere fact that respondent No. l was a minor was not sufficient in the circumstances of the case to admit him to bail in a case under section 302, P.P.C as the respondent was solely responsible for the death of the deceased by making repeated fires from the crime weapon. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.