' Appellant Muhammad Azeem, a child within the meaning of Sindh Children Act, 1955, was tried by learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Karachi, for the offence under section 302, P.P.C., who 'found him guilty and vide judgment, dated 5-10-1991 referred his case to the Provincial Government for appropriate orders under section 68(2) of the Sindh Children Act, 1955. By this appeal the appellant has challenged the said order. He also made an application under section 426, Cr.P.C., for the suspension of the order of his detention.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Shaukat H.
Zubedi, learned A.A.-G. For State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail to appellant.
3. It is contended that the trial against the appellant was concluded in the absence of an Advocate in complete disregard of the provisions contained in Rule 6, Part M, Chapter VII, of the Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars, which provides that an Advocate at State expense is to be engaged on behalf of the accused in a case inviting capital punishment. The perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that most of the important prosecution witnesses were examined without providing the services of an Advocate to the appellant and consequently the legality of the trial of the appellant is doubtful. The cases reported as Abdul Aziz and another v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 530, Niaz Ahmad v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1054, Muhammad Waqar v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 197 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1992 M LD 287, are clear on this point.
4. Faced with this situation the learned A.A.-G. Has raised no objection to the grant of bail to appellant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the appellant is granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs, one lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.