NIAZAL alias NIAZ ALI vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicant, accused of murdering his wife, sought post-arrest bail primarily on the ground of being a juvenile at the time of the incident. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on his claimed age of 14 years and 8 months at the time of the offense, or whether the medical evidence indicating he was over 16 years of age precluded such relief. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the medical certificate issued by a Radiologist contradicted the applicant's claim and established that he was over 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant had made a judicial confession regarding the crime. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a claim of juvenility is raised to seek bail, medical evidence regarding age, such as a certificate from a qualified Radiologist, will be given preference over unsubstantiated claims of age, particularly when the accused is an adult married person who has confessed to the crime.
- Should a medical certificate regarding the age of an accused be given preference over a claim of juvenility when seeking bail?
- Is an accused who has made a judicial confession entitled to bail on the sole ground of age?
- Does the medical determination of an accused being over 16 years of age at the time of the incident preclude a claim of juvenility for bail purposes?
ORDER
1. ' The bail application of the applicant, involved in case of murder (of his wife), is pressed only on the ground of age. He is stated to be 14 years and 8 months on the date of incident, which took place on 1-3-2000 at early dawn time.
2. ' The applicant is alleged to have killed his bride in his house on the first night of marriage, scaring away the P.Ws. By pronouncing her as Kari with a person, by firing from his gun at her, who died on the spot. The applicant has made a judicial confession.
3. ' The medical certificate shows that the applicant was 19/20 years of age on 26-11-2002. Thus, even, per medical certificate, the applicant's age would be more than 16 years on the date of incident. Mr. Abbasi learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show why the ilg6 as per medical certificate should not lie given preference. He has however, placed before me the following vase-law only, which in my view does not apply in the present case.
4. ' 1970 SCM R 30; PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Karachi) 511; 1983 SCM R 1001; 1996 PCr.LJ 1171 and 1997 SCM R 1381.
5. Mr. M.I. Bhutto learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed the bail application by stating that the applicant is an adult, married person. His age certificate stands belied by the medical certificate, which is issued by a Radiologist. The applicant has confessed the crime, as an act of chivalry, before the Magistrate through his Judicial confession.
6. ' In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant does not seem to be entitled to bail. His bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
7. ' By a short order dated 23-12-2003 the applicant's bail application was dismissed for the reasons as aforesaid.
8. ' The learned trial Court is however, directed to conclude the applicant's case expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months.