MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner claims bail in this case on the ground that he is not named in the F.I.R., that no identification parade has held after his arrest, that he is minor and according to the school leaving certificate, he was about 14/15 years of age at the time of occurrence, that the alleged recovery of pistol on his pointation is of no benefit to the prosecution for the reasons that according to the report of fire-arm expert the crime empties recovered from the spot did not match with the pistol recovered on the pointation of the petitioner, that no motive is attributed to the petitioner, that why he has committed the murder of the deceased. Lastly, he submits that Muhammad Rafique injured P.W. has also sworn an affidavit exonerating the petitioner.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that complainant has named the petitioner in his supplementary statement, pistol was recovered on his pointation and he is the main accused in this case. He also submits that date of attestation on the affidavit filed by Muhammad Rafique is 14-5-1998 while the occurrence took place on 8-6-1998. He submits that petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without going into the merits of the case, as the petitioner's date of birth was 1-1-1984 according to the school leaving certificate and he was aged about 14 years and six months at the time of occurrence, so his case is covered by the first proviso of section 497(.1), Cr.P.C.

4. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

H.B.T./M-279/L

Bail granted.