Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4290-B of 19 79, decided on 10th December 1979.

-----S. 497-13ail in non-bailable offences-Principle for grant of. The mere fact that an accused is charged of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years would not mean that the bail application be dismissed as a matter of routine. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. The F. 1. R. or the prosecution version is not sacrosanct or a gospel truth. The Presiding Officers have to bear in mind the prevalent circumstances of our society, tendencies to put forward an exaggerated or a concocted version, tendencies to suppress their own role and tendencies of throwing the net more widely and several other human reactions and considerations which would reflect not only on the culpability of the accused but also upon the nature of the offence, and it is with this purpose that a discretionary jurisdiction to allow bail in a suitable case 'is vested in Courts.

----S. 497-Bail, grant of-Petitioner a 12 years old school going lad charged for offences under S. 307/324/149, P. P. C.-Occurrence a counterversion and question as to who is aggressor yet to be deter mined at trial-Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.

Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner.

Rashid Aziz Khan, Additional Advocate-General alongwith Najamuz Zaman for the State.

The petitioner along with others has been challaned for offences under sections 307/324/149 and 148, P. P. C.

Since it was argued that the petitioner is a 12 years old school going lad, I thought it expedient to send for him. I have observed the petitioner and I was shocked by the apathy of the learned Additional Sessions Judge over his order rejecting the bail of this innocent young lad of 12 years merely on the ground that he was accused of an offence under section 307, P. P. C. and the presence of injuries on his person. The mere tact that an accused is charged of an offence punishable with death, life imprison ment or ten years would not mean that the bail application be dismissed as a matter of routine. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. The F. I. R. or the prosecution version is not sacrosanct or a gospel truth. The Presiding Officers have to bear in mind the prevalent circumstances of our society, tendencies to put forward an exaggerated or a concocted version, tendencies to suppress their own role and tendencies of throwing the net more widely and several other human reactions and considerations which would reflect not only on the culpability of the accused but also upon the nature of the offence, and it is with this purpose that a discre tionary jurisdiction to allow bail in a suitable case is vested in Courts.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has overlooked

(i) That bail on ground of minority is allowed even in a case of capital charge ;

(ii) that section 83 of the Pakistan Penal Code in General Exceptions Chapter may even be attracted, which would entitle the petitioner to clean acquittal ;

(iii) that this innocent looking school going 11/12 years old lad .has been sent to judicial lock-up and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has overlooked the risk involved in exposing him to the company and influences of maturer and hardened criminals ;

(iv) that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail application in routine and not applied a conscientious mind to the facts of this case. He has overlooked that in the same occurrence the- father of the petitioner sustained a lacerated wound on the top Of his head and another lacerated wound on the right side of his chest. Similarly, the maternal grandfather of the petitioner Qazi Hamidullah, an eighty years old Imam Masjid. sustained injuries including a lacerated wound on the top of his head and another real brother of the petitioner Muhammad 1qbal suffered four injuries on head and other vital parts. The petitioner himself suffered a lacerated wound on the right side of his head ;

(v) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also overlooked that this was a case of counterversions and it was yet to be determined as to who is an aggressor and at the same time this learned Addi tional Sessions Judge has completely overlooked that the presence of an injury on an accused only indicated the possibility of his involvement in the incident and not that he was an aggressor.

In this view of the matter, I have thought it expedient to release the petitioner forthwith on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 to the satisfaction of Magistrate for his appearance in Court as and when required.

I suo Motu exempt his personal appearance in Courts during the course of trial subject to a counsel undertaking to appear on his behalf in Court.

Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.