Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No,62 on 31-8-1999 under section 382/411/34, P.P.C. In Police Station Donga Gali, Tehsil and District Abbottabad, the accused-petitioners moved their bail application in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Abbottabad but the same was rejected vide order 29-9-1999. Thereafter, they approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad but their application was dismissed vide order, dated 28-10-1999. Now they have moved this Court for the same purpose.
2. Gul Faiz Khan son of Lal Khan submitted written Application to the S.H.O. Police Station, Donga Gali to the effect that he is owner and driver of Suzuki Carry No,1589/D. On the day of occurrence three young persons came to General Bus-Stand and hired Suzuki Carry for Rs,300 for Kala Bagh.
On reaching near Bara Gali, complainant was asked to turn towards Summer Camp. In the way there was a pond of water, the complainant stopped the vehicle and told that he cannot take the vehicle through the pond, on which accused-petitioners started beating him and two of them took out pistols, which they were concealing under their Chaddars. The accused-petitioners snatched a sum of Rs,700, a wrist watch, identity card and a cassette from the complainant and decamped from the spot towards jungle. Since the accused-petitioners were talking to each other in their local dialogue and were taking their names, therefore, the complainant came to know of their names, Mushtaq, Shafique and Shahzad.
3. Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were arrested on the same day, i,e, on 31-8-1999. The recovery of .30 bore pistol from Mushtaq and one Seiko wrist-watch and identity card of the accused from the pocket of Shahzad has been shown on 1-9-1999. Likewise recovery of Rs,700 and tape-recorder at the pointation of Shafique has been shown on 4-9-1999. No plausible explanation for delayed recovery has been given.
4. It was further argued that accused Shafique and Shahzad are below the age of 16 years as is clear from school leaving certificates. The story of theft has been concocted by the complainant as is clear from the contents of the F.I.R. That the accused-petitioners were known to the complainant by name and even he knew about the place of their residence.
5. On the other hand, Syed Amjad Shah, Advocate the learned counsel representing the complainant and Qazi Muhammad Ghazanfar, A.A.-G. Representing the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that prima facie, the accused are connected with the commission of offence as recoveries have been effected from them. The school leaving certificates are bogus and fictitious.
They drew the attention of this Court on the school leaving certificate of Shahzad accused, in which his date of birth has been shown as 6-3-1984 whereas he was admitted in school in 26-6-1986, i,e,, after two years of his birth. It was argued that the accused are more than 17 years of age as is clear from the record of the case. In view of the recoveries made from them or on their pointation they are not entitled for grant of bail. Moreover, challan of the case has been submitted in Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7 . There is a prima facie case connecting the accused-petitioners with the commission of offence.
During the personal search of Shahzad identity card of complainant alongwith wrist watch was recovered. A .30 bore pistol was recovered from accused Mushtaq on 1-9-1999 and on pointation of accused Shafique on 4-9-1999 Rs,700 and tape recorder was recovered. Accused Shahzad confessed his guilt. The confessional statement of Shahzad is inculpatory in its nature. He has involved accused Mushtaq and Shafique in the said statement.
8. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Muhammad Shahzad and Shafique Ahmad, accused are under the age of 16 years as is clear from their school leaving certificates. This argument has no force because perusal of school leaving certificate of Muhammad Shahzad shows that he was born on 6-3-1984 whereas he was admitted in the school on 21-6-1986. Prima facie the certificate appears to be bogus because a kid of 2 years is not admitted in school. Even otherwise according to the report of the Medical Officer, dated 5-9-1999, Shafique is about 17 years and Mushtaq is about 24 years. The Investigation Officer has also found them to be 18/19 years of age. Challan of the case is complete and is likely to be put into Court within a couple of days.
9. At this stage I am not inclined to release them on bail. Their application is, therefore, dismissed.
The prosecution is directed to submit challan within 15 days and the trial Court is directed to conclude the same within a period of 4 months failing which the accused-petitioners may move application for their release on bail in the trial Court.