' Shah Zameen son of Raghdameen resident of Sumari Payan, Police Station Laches has preferred the present petition for his bail in case F.I.R. No,164, dated 27-11-1997 of Police Station Lachi Kohat for offence under section 302, P.P.C. The petitioner had earlier moved application for bail before Lie Judicial Magistrate Kohat which was rejected on 13-4-1998. Thereafter, he moved the Court of Sessions and on 21-5-1998 the Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat rejected his application. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid two orders he has preferred the present petition before this Court.
2. Facts of the case are that on 27-11-1997 Mst. Hassan Pari widow of Zahir Shah complainant went to Police Station Laches where she reported the matter at 9 a.m.
3. According to the narration of the F.I.R. On the date of occurrence at about 8 a.m. Her son, Ahmad Nawaz deceased of the present case, after taking tea went out of the house. After a little while she heard the report of firing followed by noise. She went out of the house where she was informed by the people that her son Ahmad Nawaz was fired at by Shah Zameen, the present petitioner, and was injured. According to her the occurrence was witnessed by many persons. She alleged that the injured had been removed by the residents of the village to the emergency room of Civil Hospital Kohat. No motive for the offence was given in the report.
4. The deceased when examined in injured condition in the hospital was pulseless; therefore, his statement could not be recorded by the police. His nature of injuries was grievous and he, however, expired in the hospital on the same day.
5. During the investigation of the case the statements of two witnesses Lal Wali and Mukhtar were recorded. These two witnesses are, no doubt, the relations of the deceased but they have no motive to falsely charge the accused. They have fully supported the charge of murder brought against the accused-petitioner. The report in the matter has been promptly lodged by the complainant ' Mst. Hassan Pari and in the absence of any previous enmity a prima facie case I appears against the accused-petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused-petitioner was of tender age as according to him his date of birth is 2-5-1983 and he was less than 16 years of age. In support he annexed the attested photo copy of a Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation Karachi.
A perusal of the certificate would show that it was issued on 25-7-1984 after about one year of the birth of the petitioner. No doubt, according to the certificate, the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence was of tender age but this fact per se should not be a ground to release the accused on bail keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The accused was not traceable after the incident and he was in ascendance till he was arrested on 8-3-1998 in a raid by the local police. The birth certificate on which reliance is placed, at this stage, does not seem to be authentic, therefore, the same can be considered and evaluated by the trial Court at the stage of trial. This Court need not apparently go into the deep appreciation of evidence at bail stage.
8. Having considered the direct charge brought against the accused-petitioner supported by the ocular account and the ascendance of the accused-petitioner, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. The application is accordingly rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the accused. My above observations shall not prejudice the case of the accused at trial.