Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 74 of 1985, decided on 9th July, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Applicant caught red‑handed while committing robbery in complainant's house, after having been armed with a revolver‑‑Applicant although a boy about 16 years of age, nevertheless, while exercising discretion in favour of a jouvenile offender attending circumstances, held, could not be lost sight of‑ Applicant declined bail in circumstances.‑‑[Age].

1970 S C M R 30 ref.

Abdul Monim Khan for Applicant.

Hasan Akbar, A. A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1985.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Munir Ahmad, who is charged for the offence punishable under section 17(3) of Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. It is alleged that on 25‑5‑1985 at 2‑30 p.m. the complainant Tahir Rahman was present in his house with his brother‑in‑law Azhar when 3 persons with muffled faces came and challenged inmates of the house not to move from their places and surrender whatever they had. The complainant and Azhar succeeded in arresting the applicant Munawar Ahmad, who was armed with revolver.

Mr. Abdul Munim Khan contended that applicant is a boy of about 16 years of age, therefore, he is entitled to bail on the ground of age. He had referred to the cases reported in 1970 S C M R 30, 1983 S C M R 1001 and 1985 P Cr. L J 708 and 1220.

Mr. Hassan Akbar, learned A.‑A.G. has no objection if bail is granted to the applicant. He has argued that co‑accused Muhammad Aijaz has already been granted bail by this Court on the ground of age.

The applicant was caught red‑handed on the spot while committing robbery in the house of the complainant. He was found armed with revolver at the time of incident which was secured from him and then report was filed. The robberies have become common subject in Karachi and mostly the youngsters are charged for such serious offences. On this I refer to a case of Kanwar Imam bin v. Muhammad Rafiq and another reported in 1983 S C M R 791 where it has been held that it is the discretion of Court to allow bail to accused below 16 years of age but attendant circumstances of crime cannot be lost sight while exercising such discretion and bail granted by the High Court on the ground of age was cancelled by the Supreme Court. The case has not proceeded and it is for the applicant to explain as to how and under what circumstances he was caught in the house of the complainant with weapon and cartridges.

I am of the view that no case has been made out for bail and I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant in this serious case. His application is dismissed. However, the case of the co‑accused Muhammad Aijaz who is granted bail is distinguistable as he was not arrested on the spot and was with muffled face at the time of incident.

S. G. D. Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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