1. ' Briefly the facts are that on 25-8-1976 a F. I. R. Was lodged by one Muhammad at Site Police Station, Hyderabad, that while he was working on the lands of Col. Noor Muhammad he was informed by one Muhammad, the Kamdar of Col. Noor Muhammad, that a dead body was lying in the field. On the basis of this report, investigation was taken up by the Police and five accused persons were arrested including the present applicant. The applicant made statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. In which he implicated the four accused and confessed to his participation in the crime. In view of this culpatory statement as well as the fact that the applicant was aged 15 years (which fact has now been confirmed by medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad dated 20th March, 1976), the applicant was granted pardon and made approver in the case, by the learned Magistrate under section 337, Cr. P. C. The challan has been submitted but the trial in the Sessions Court has not yet commenced.
2. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the High Court could grant bail to an approver in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C., despite the bar contained in section 337(3), Cr. P. C. And in support thereof he referred to two cases, namely, Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (1) and Abdul Latif v. The State (2). In the former case, it was held that section 337(3), Cr. P. C. Does not absolutely bar jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail to an approver under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. The circumstances in that case were that the approver had remained in jail for as long as four years without immediate prospect of trial, and on this ground of hardship bail was granted to the approver. In the other case, same principles were approved and applied and while the bail was granted to one approver on grounds of hardship, namely he remained in jail for seven years without substantial progress of trial, the bail to the other approver was refused on the ground that there was no case of hardship or inordinate delay as he had been in jail only for one and a half years.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad All Shaikh submitted that although he could not make out a case of real hardship, nevertheless applicant is entitled to bail on the ground that there was no evidence against him presently on record, and also because the applicant is a minor. On both these grounds, he submitted that applicant would have been entitled to bail in accordance with the principles of section 497, Cr. P. C., had that section applied.
4. ' Mr. Ghulam Ali Memon, learned Advocate-General submitted that admittedly no case has been made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. As no case of abuse of process of the Court or of any circumstance to secure the ends of justice, has been made out by the app'icant. He also submitted that he does not concede that the provisions of section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Can be invoked in view of the bar of section 337(3), Cr. P. C. I would accept the view expressed in the aforementioned decisions and would reject the application because no case of hardship or injustice has been made out. The applicant has been in detention only for a short time and there is no case of any inordinate delay. The applicant being a minor may apply for his transfer to a juvenile jail. However I would direct that the trial of the case by the Sessions Court shall be undertaken expeditiously. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1971 P Cr. L J 1150 (2) PLD 1975 Kar. 159 {{FOOT NOTE}}