' The petitioner is involved in a Case F.I.R. No,459 of 1996, dated 21-9-1996 for the offences under sections 302, 324 and 337-F(i)(v), P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shamali Chhaoni, Lahore, on the complaint of Qasim Bashir son of Bashir Ahmad Qureshi alleging that he was learning by heart the Holy Qur'an for the last two years in Jamia-al-Manzoor. During this period he developed friendship with Farooq Ahmad son of Saifullah Khalid the Administrator and Abid Hussain son of Master Salama Ali, resident of Lallaoh, of Police Station Hadyara. The friendship brought undesirable consequences regarding which the complainant made complaint to Maulana Sahib in Jamia-al-Manzoor and also to his own mother. The mother of the complainant also made complaint to Maulana Sahib, on which he gave beating to Abid Hussain, who became enemy of the complainant. The complainant discarded going to Madrassa. On 21-9-1996 at about 12-00 noon the complainant was on the upper story of his younger, brother Hashim, his mother Mst. Perveen Akhtar and their maidservant Mst. Sarwar Begum were in the ground-floor in the compound.
Brother of the complainant namely Hashim went out of the house to receive electricity bill where Abid Hussain son of Master Salamat Ali was present at the gate, who asked about the complainant.
The brother of the complainant told that the complainant was in the house. Abid Hussain went into the house where the mother of the complainant and Mst. Sarwar Begum were sitting. He asked them about the complainant. The complainant spoke from above that he did not want to see him nor he was his friend. The brother of the complainant and his mother asked him the reasons of his undesirable activities and also enquired as to why he was not leaving them. This cause annoyed to the accused and he brought-out a Chhuri from the 'Nefa' of his shalwar and gave the blow to the brother of the complainant namely Hashim on his bally and neck. The mother and the maid- servant. Mst. Sarwar Begum tried to get hold of him and the accused Abid gave Chhuri blows to the mother of the complainant on her bally and leg and also gave Chhuri blows to Mst. Sarwar Begum and then ran away and was seen at the same time by Saeed Ahmad son of Muhammad Saeed Qureshi. The injured Mst. Pervain Akhtar, brother Muhammad Hashim and Mst. Sarwar Begum were taken to the hospital. Later on, Mst. Sarwar Begum succumbed to the injuries.
2. Notice was given to the State and Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum, Advocate for the State has appeared.
3. Arguments have been heard at length.
4. All the legal heirs of the deceased are also present (the husband of Mst. Sarwar Sultana namely Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Ijaz son of Mst. Sarwar Sultana, Sumara daughter of Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Shahbaz son of Mst. Sarwar Sultana and Kashaf son of Mst. Sarwar Sultana).
5. Earlier the bail was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 16-9-1998.
6. The bail is now pressed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen and has been falsely and maliciously implicated due to inimical and ulterior motive of the complainant and that there has been compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased lady Mst. Sarwar Begum and that they all appeared before the learned trial Judge and sworn their respective affidavits regarding their compromise between the petitioner and the legal heirs of Mst. Sarwar Begum (deceased) and that in such a situation the provisions of section 302, P.P.C., are not attracted and that the injured in the above case did not compromise with the petitioner and in this view of the matter the case against the petitioner only falls under section 377, P.P.C., along with other subsections in which the maximum punishment is only 7 years and that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that in such-like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is only an exception as law cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution and that the petitioner's age at the time of occurrence was less than 16 years and that his case falls under the first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last two years and the trial against the petitioner has not yet been completed and that there is no possibility or probability of its early conclusion and that the third proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is also attracted and that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor he is dangerous, desperate or hardened criminal non he has any criminal history with any police station and there is no apprehension of the petitioner's abscondance and that the petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds to the entire satisfaction of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Muhammad Sudheer v. The State 1998 M LD 1994.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. And his minority cannot come in the way of believing him guilty and that he has committed heinous offence, and that though the legal heirs of the deceased have forgiven the petitioner the injured have not forgiven.
9. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides and gone through the documents on the record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner is a first offender, according to the relevant date, the date of occurrence i,e, 21-9-1996, his age comes to 16 years and is a minor in view of section 299, P.P.C., and his case would fall under section 306, P.P.C., the punishment of which is only Diyat under section 308, P.P.C., and under the 2nd proviso to section 308, P.P.C., with imprisonment of either description which may relates to 14 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No,372 of 1994, (Sajjad Ahmad v. Muhammad Amir and another) observed:--- "The learned Judge in the High Court took note of the fact that under sections 306 and 308, P.P.C., capital punishment cannot be awarded to a minor even if he is found guilty of murder although under the second proviso of subsection (1) of section 308, P.P.C., he may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years as Ta'zir if at the time of committing Qatl-eAmd the minor offender had attained sufficient maturity to realize the consequences of his act. The learned Judge rightly observed that this aspect of the matter could only be determined during the trial on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and was, therefore, a case of further inquiry. Thus, visualized the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in allowing bail to the respondent under the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not open to exception."
11. All the legal heirs of the deceased lo have given their affidavits before the Trial Court, copies of which have been placed on the record of this case and they are also present in person in the Court and admit that they have given their affidavits and have got no objection for granting bail to the petitioner.
12. The accused/petitioner has been detained for an offence punishable with death.
13. Keeping in view all these circumstances this is a fit case for grant of bail.
14. As such the petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail on the execution of bail bond by him in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees 'fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.