FARMAN ULLAH Versus State
SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.--- Petitioner Farman Ullah, after refusal of bail by the learned court below, in case FIR No.92 dated 13/07/2015, registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Shah Salim, district Karak, moved the instant bal petition to this Court on different ground, mentioned therein.
2. Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that on 13/07/20 15 at about 18.30 hours, complainant Mst. Benazira brought dead body' of husband Aziz ur Rahman with the help of his co villagers in a Datsun pick up to the Police station and lodged a report to the effect that on the eventful day she along with her children and husband Aziz ur Rehman was present in the house, when at about 1740 hours, co-accused Gul Rehman, accused/petitioner Farman Ullah and Mst. Rukhsana Bibi duly armed with deadly weapons came to the courtyard of their house and on the command of accused Gul Rehman, accused/petitioner Farmanullah and Mst. Rukhsana Bibi started firing at Aziz ur Rehman with the intention to commit his qatl-i amcl, resultantly, he was hit on his head -and died on the spot from his firing. There was a dispute over construction of water tank between the parties. Her report was culminated in shape of FIR (ibid).
3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant A.G. for the state and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
4. The record transpires that the petitioner along with his father and sister namely Rukhsana are having been charged for the murder of the deceased and the matter was reported by Mst. Benazira widow of the deceased. The father of the petitioner Gul Rahman has been charged for "Lalkara" whereas the petitioner and his sister for firing at the deceased and it was the fire shot of the petitioner which proved effective. The matter was promptly reported with no mistaken identity and the motive was stated to be a dispute over the construction of a water tank. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at considerable length but on merit, he could not succeed in making out a case for bail however, he wanted the indulgence of this Court in the matter, on the pretext that the petitioner according to an excerpt, collected from the school record, has been shown as Juvenile during the days of occurrence. It was argued that as in the card of arrest, the age of the petitioner has been shown 18/19 years, so presumption can be drawn that during the days of incident, he was not more than 13 years of age, if so, the benefit extended to the Juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 fully attracts in his case.
5. We scanned the record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, but despite an extract collected from the school register, nothing was produced before the court to confirm the plea taken, so in this eventuality this Court, keeping in view the deficiency regarding the age of the petitioner, cannot extend the concession of bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is at liberty that if some substantial evidence in respect of his age is either collected or comes on record to apply for his post arrest bail, then too, the learned lower court in that eventuality will apply his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected. At this juncture, the petitioner could not succeed in making out a case for bail. The instant bail petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed.
SA/94/P Bail declined.