1977 P Cr (PLP)

S. M. Chaudhry for Petitioner. The petitioners are involved in a case under section 302/392/34, P. P. C. The F. I. R. was lodged at 1‑00 a. m. on 28‑7‑75 to the effect that the complainant while on his way saw an injured person lying near Kacha Kuoch Vehari Road, which appeared to be a dead body. The complainant went to his Chak and brought another person and saw that the dead body was that of Nazir Ahmad, Pinsal Navees Nehr Pakpattan Pull 24, W. B. The blood bad flowed from the lower portion of the body. After recording The F. I. R., the Police authorities started investigation. No trace of the culprits was found until 1‑8‑1975 when one Najabat, Lambardar Chak No. 109 W. B. brought one Taj Mohammed. The later stated that he was going with Nazir Ahmad on the later"s motor‑cycle sitting behind him and when they reached near the place of occurrence at about 10‑30. p.m. he saw that a rope was hung to stop the traffic and Abdul Sattar and Mohammad Ramzan (petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) were standing near the rope and as soon as Nazir Ahmad deceased stopped the motor‑cycle, four other persons emerged whose names were Rashid (petitioner No. 3), Riaz Akbar, Sadaqat and Basher. The three petitioners and one Riaz Akbar their co‑accused were arrested after about two months. From Abdul Sattar was recovered, Scooter, from Ramzan a watch, front Rashid a pistol and from Riaz Akbar a motor‑cycle. It is stated by the Investigating officer that the motor‑cycle was registered in the name of the deceased Nazir Ahmad. Sadaqat and Bashir are still absconding and have not yet been arrested. Sardar and Ahmad appeared before the investigating Officer and stated that they bad seen the six accused before the occurrence near the spot. Latif Shah. Jan Mohammad, Najab Ali and Allah Bachaya stated before the Investigating Agency that the six accused bad made extra‑judicial confessions before them. Abdul Sattar, Muhammad Ramzan and Rashid applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge but their application was dismissed on 11‑6‑1976. They have come up to this Court for bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Abdul Sattar anal Mohammad Ramzan were about 15 and 14 years respectively at the time of occurrence. They being under 16 years are entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of Cr. P. C. It is, next contended that it was blind murder and there is no way of saying that these petitioners and their co‑petitioner Rashid, petitioner No. 3, were involved in this case. Further, that there was no motive for the petitioners to have committed the crime. Learned counsel has referred to Sikandar Hayat v. The State (1972 P Cr. L J 74) on the point that when accused is below the age of 16 years, he may be released on bail. He has also referred to Liaqat .ill etc, v. The Stare (1977 P Cr. L J 494) for the proposition the solitary witness Taj Mohammad who appeared before the Investigating Agency after four days could trot be relied upon and in similar circumstances in the above‑mentioned case, the accused were allowed bail and so the petitioners should be. 3. Learned counsel for the State bas opposed the bail application ant given most of the facts mentioned above. The Investigating Officer has also produced the record. 4. The Investigating Agency has collected material against the petitioner in so far as that Taj Mohammad had said that he was sitting on the motor‑cycle behind the deceased Nazir Ahmad when they were waylaid he identified the first two petitioners as standing near the rope meant for stopping the traffic and the other accused, including Rashid, to be emerging, from nearly to the scene of occurrence. He has stated about the manner in which the deceased was murdered, his motor‑cycle was robbed and the accused made good their escape. Two other persons Sardar and Ahmad have stated that they had seen the accused persons including the three petitioners immediately before the occurrence. Four persons have also deposed that the accused had made extra‑judicial confession before them Recoveries have been made from the petitioners and a Sootri Watch and pistol have been recovered respectively. In the circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners has naturally repudiated all the material collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner. However, in the presence of such an overwhelming material, it would be prepostrous to release the accused on bail who had apparently committed murder and highway robbery. 5 As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner., that the first two petitioners are minors, it is true that from the School Leaving Certificate, it appears that the petitioners were under the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence but that fact by itself is not enough to release the accused persons on bail, if they had been active participants in the crime. The two accused petitioners i.e. 1 and 2 were seen by two witness to be standing with the rope for the purpose of stopping the traffic, and the deceased had to stop his motor‑cycle. Toe recoveries have also beers mad from them. There is an eye‑witness account and these are four witnesses about the extra judicial confession. The more fact of age of persons being less than 16 years is no licence for committing a crime of murder and highway robbery. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the two petitioners in spite of their age being less than 16 years at the time of occurrence are not entitled to bail. As regards the petitioner No. 3 this ground is neither available nor urged. As regards the contention or the learned coun sel for the petitioner that the murder was a blind murder and the evidence collected against the petitioner is not sufficient to warrant their conviction it is premature to say that the evidence against the petitioners is not reliable to be believed or that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner are guilty of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years' rigorous imprisonment. 6. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.