Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application No. 753 of 1986, decided on 14th December, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood). Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 2(a)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Contention that petitioner being 18 years of age therefore he was entitled to bail in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of S.2 of Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979‑ Contention, held, misconceived‑‑Petitioner being a major, in accordance with proviso appended to S. 497, Cr.P.C. and offence charged with being serious, petitioner was not entitled to bail‑‑Bail declined, in circumstances.
1975 P Cr. L J 936; 1985 P Cr. L J 1250; 1983 S C M R 791; 1984 P Cr. L J 931 and 1137 and 1984 P Cr. L J 1003 ref.
Gul Zaman Khan for Appellant.
A.G. Mangi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
This is an application for bail in a case registered under section 392, P.P.C. and section 17 (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
The allegation in the F.I.R. is that three persons committed robbery at booking office railway station Landhi on 3‑8‑1986.
Mr. Gul Zaman appearing for the applicant argued that age of applicant is about 18 years, therefore, he is entitled to bail as margin of error could be one year on either side. He has referred to the case reported in 1975 P. Cr. L J 936 and 1985 P Cr. L J 1250. It is argued that in view of section 2 of clause 2 of Enforcement of Hadd Order the applicant is not adult. Mr. A.G. Mangi has opposed the bail.
This is a case of robbery and applicant has been, immediately after his arrest, identified by complainant Bashir Ahmed. Section 392, P.P.C. has also been applied, therefore, the case is also to be governed under the Cr.P.C. and P.P.C. Under section 497, Cr.P.C. the bail could be considered under the exceptions provided accused is under 16 years of age. The case of the applicant is not covered by this proviso. He is a major.
In case of Kunwar Imam Din v/ Muhammad Rafiq and others reported in 1983 S C M R 791 it has been held by the Supreme Court, as under. The bail granted by the High Court was cancelled.
"After examining the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was not at all a fit case for the grant of bail. It is true that if an accused person is below the age of 16 years, the Court has a discretion to allow bail even in a case punishable with death or transportation for life, but while exercising this discretion, the attendant circumstances of the crime cannot be lost sight of. In the instant case we find that according to the allegations made by the prosecution it was the respondent who opened the attack on the deceased who was an elderly man, and fired several shots at him from a revolver. The circumstance that he might have acted under the influence of the older co‑accused Liaqat does not appear to have any bearing on the respondent's culpability. We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and cancel the bail granted to the respondent. He shall be taken into custody and remanded to the judicial lock up for the duration of the trial."
I also refer to the cases reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 931 and 1137, 1984 P Cr. L J 1003 and 1984 P Cr. L J 171. In all these cases the bail was declined on the ground of age in the serious offences.
Application having no merits is dismissed.
S.G.D/S‑6/K Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer