2015 PLP 2384 (YLR)

YAR MUHAMMAD, J.

On 28-3-2014 at about 1415 hours complainant Rehmat Azeem while appearing in Police Station City, Gilgit presented an application to the SHO wherein he stated that on the date he after offering Juma prayer at Tabligi Markaz, Gilgit just had disengaged that someone informed him about his son Aanus has been murdered at about 1330 hours at Domyal while one Asif was with him who has witnessed the occurrence. According to the FIR no enmity was there with his son of anyone. On the basis of above information the SHO registered Criminal Case No. 25 of 2014 under section 302, P.P.C. and while coming in action the police arrested the petitioner/accused on the same date. After completion of the investigation the police submitted challan of the case to the court of competent jurisdiction for trial and now the petitioner/accused is in judicial lock-up at Gilgit facing trial of the case.

2. The petitioner moved an application for bail to learned trial court which was declined through order dated 15-8-2014 but subsequently he again moved an application with new ground but inconsequence, hence this application.

3. Messrs Jahanzeb and Mashal Khan advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in criminal case No. 26/2014 the police had also nominated the present petitioner for the murder of a girl Mst. Munira but later on the police exonerated the petitioner from that charge and this fact fully makes the instant case one of further enquiry. It was argued that the I.O. has recorded the statement of PW Asif under section 161, Cr.P.C. but the statement being doubtful was not to be relied upon therefore, the police conducted identification parade of the accused in presence of one Naib Tehsildar in the office of police investigation wing Gilgit which being against settled procedure and law cannot be used for conviction and while concluding the learned counsel claimed the petitioner is Juvenile and being so is deserve for bail.

4. Malik Sherbaz Dy. A.G. assisted by Mr. Amjad Hussain advocate on the other hand contended that although the petitioner/accused has been declared Juvenile by the learned trial court and this court but submitted the order vide which the petitioner was declared Juvenile has been challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court. He contended that juvenility cannot be taken as a valid ground for bail because of the accused is involved in a murder case for which capital punishment is provided. It was argued that the occurrence has taken place in broad day light that also in presence of eye-witness namely Aasif and the police has recorded the statement of the witness on same date vide which the PW has fully supported the prosecution version therefore, the identification parade although was not required in the matter but has been conducted for further strengthening of the prosecution case.

5. I have considered the arguments heatedly advanced before me by the respective counsel of the parties and perused the police record made available by the learned Dy. A.G.

6. So far the accused being Juvenile is concerned, the learned trial court and subsequently this court has declared the petitioner/accused is near to the age of 18 years but it is clear that the accused at that time had crossed the age of 15 years as such bail facility cannot be extended on this score because of his having been blamed for murder of a human being. A person who physically and mentally is fit enough to operate a weapon and practically can kill a person cannot be benefited with bail facility if he is involved in a criminal activity for which capital punishment is provided. The trend of murdering opponents by engaging teens is an alarming message to the society and if the trend is encouraged the crime rate in the society will be increased day by day. Thus, in my opinion, the minority should not be allowed to furnish license to kill, except that some concession is extended during trial and conviction but at bail stage it may not be great helpful particularly when the accused during this period has reached to the age of 18 years.

7. So far the ocular account brought on record is concerned, statement of eye-witness namely Aasif has been recorded on the same date who's name as eye-witness is also appearing in the FIR. Identification parade of the accused has also been conducted in presence of the said PW. How far the proceeding carried with regard to the identification parade and the statement of the eye-witness are defective, would be seen at trial but for this stage these pieces of evidence, prima facie, connect the accused with offence. Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage normally is avoided and the object behind this recognized principle is that the Judge should avoid forecasting as to whether the prosecution case is going to be proved or otherwise which would result influencing the trial Court.

8. For the reasons what have been discussed above, the application is declined and dismissed. File. HBT/85/GB Bail refused.