' Through this application, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,56 of 2001 registered on 4-3-2001 under section 302, P.P.C., at Police Station Dij Kot District Faisalabad, on the statement of Ajmair.
2. The brief facts of the case are that at about 12-00 noon on 4-3-2001, the complainant, Saif Ullah son of Fateh Din and Allah Ditta were on way to their house. Muzammal Abbas petitioner armed with gun .12 bore fired at Allah Data son of the complainant which hit him on the right shoulder, who fell down and died. The petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence. The motive has been alleged that litigation was pending between the parties and Allah Ditta has been murdered due to the previous enmity.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and the story in the F.I.R. Is totally false. The shot was fired in the air accidentally by the petitioner and there was no intention of the petitioner to commit the murder of Allah Ditta as there is no previous enmity between the parties as alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R. It is further contended that the petitioner is aged about 14 years and police during the investigation has come to the conclusion that this is an accidental shot and not a pre-planned murder. Hence section 319, P.P.C. Has been added for purposes of submission of challan, which is punishable with five years' R. t. And the petitioner is entitled to the bail.
4. Learned State Counsel and the counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is the only accused nominated in the F.I.R. Immediately after the occurrence and the only injury attributed to him was fatal for the death of Allah Ditta, hence the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is the only accused in this case, who was armed with gun .12 bore and fired at the deceased. According to the complainant and other witnesses of the occurrence, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been attributed to him. The occurrence in this case took place at 12-00 noon and the F.I.R.
Has been lodged on the same day at 1-55 p.m. Hence there is no chances of false implication of the petitioner in this case and the plea about the concoction of false story by the complainant for his involvement in this case is without substance. The petitioner is involved in a murder case which falls within the prohibitory clause and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence, which is punishable with death or transportation of life. There is no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner by the complainant in such heinous offence.
6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an accidental fire shot cannot be considered at this stage as the merits of the case are not required to be considered at the time of hearing of bail application. It will be seen after recording the evidence by the trial Court, whether shot was fired with intention to commit the murder or whether the shot fired was accidental. The opinion of the police is not binding on the Court, as it has no legal value. In the circumstances of this case when the complainant and other witnesses fully support the prosecution case and claim that it is pre-planned murder committed by the petitioner, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the police opinion without the support of any material evidence is repelled. Though the case of the petitioner falls within the first proviso to section 497. Cr.P.C. Being a minor less than age 16 years, it is not mandatory to grant the bail to such accused. I deem it not a fit case for the exercise of judicious discretion in favour of the petitioner, who is responsible for the murder of 11 years child and is guilty of very heinous offence.
7. The petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the circumstances of the case. The application has no force and is dismissed.