Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13/B of 1974/BWP; decided on 25th March, 1974.

---S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail‑‑Age‑‑Accused accord ing to School Leaving Certificate aged less than 16 ‑years‑‑On two X‑Ray examinations found 16 years and 16 to 17 years age‑‑Accused though attributed 15 injuries, High Court relying on School Leaving Certificate regarding age, admitted accused to bail.‑‑[Age].

Siraj Din v. Saghir‑ud‑Din and another 1970 S C M R 30 ref.

Muhammad Munir Khan assisted by M.M.A. Pirzada for Petitioners.

M.A. Hamid‑ for the State.

Asghar Ali Bhatti for the Complainant.

Muhammad Saleem petitioner is accused for the murder of his cousin Abdul Aziz. A case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against him on 9th October, 1973, at Police Station Kotwali, Bahawalpur.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner used to live in the Chaubara of the complainant's house, about which a civil suit was instituted by the father of the petitioner, which was decided in favour of the complainant party. Two months before the occurrence, the portion of house in possession of the petitioner fell down due to rains. Conse quently, the petitioner and his father had to leave the premises. The petitioner's father wanted to rebuild the Chaubara, but he was resisted by the complainant party.‑ Consequently, on the 9th October, 1973, the petitioner attacked Abdul Aziz, brother of the complainant, with G knife and inflicted fifteen injuries to him, who died on his way to the hospital. The petitioner was secured at the spot with the knife.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the date of birth as recorded in the school leaving certificate, the petitioner was 15 years 8 months old at the time of the occurrence. 01, the application of the complainant, the petitioner was X‑rayed on 11th December, 1973, and was found to be about 16 years of age. Again all application was made by the complainant for the second X‑ray examination of the petitioner, which was allowed and the petitioner was examined at Nishtar Hospital, Multan. He was found to be 16 to 17 years of age.

4. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant contended that since the petitioner was 16 to 17 years of age according to the second X‑ray report, he was, therefore, not entitled to bail on the ground of age. It was also argued that the Courts below did not consider it a fit case for bail because the petitioner had inflicted fifteen injuries to the deceased with a knife. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a certified copy of an order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4163 of 1967. In the unreported case, one Saghir‑ud‑Din was allowed bail because according to the birth entry in the Municipal Corporation and the school leaving certificate, the accused in that case was found to be less than 16 years of age. This case went before the Supreme Court and is reported as Siraj Din v. Saghir‑ud‑Din and another 1970 S C M R 30. It was laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that although the age of the accused was between 16 and 17 years; according to the X‑ray report, the order of the High Court was not irregular and, therefore, leave was refused. In the present case, although fifteen injuries have been attributed to the petitioner, but the fact remains that at the time of the occurrence, according to the school leaving certificate, he was less than sixteen years of age. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committing Magistrate. The Committing Magistrate may consider the question of cancellation of bail at the time of commitment of the case.

M. A. K. 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.