SHAFQAT NAZEER vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from F.I.R. No. 22 of 2003 at Police Station Fareed Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering his status as a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence, the fact that co-accused had been declared innocent, and that he was allegedly empty-handed with no marks of violence on the deceased. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and fell under the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court admitted the petitioner to bail, laying down the principle that a minor accused whose co-accused have been declared innocent, and whose case involves further inquiry regarding motive and actual role, is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Whether a minor petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when co-accused have been declared innocent?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry where the petitioner was allegedly empty-handed and the medical evidence shows no marks of violence?
- Whether the detention of a juvenile accused for a prolonged period serves any useful purpose when the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and alleged mala fides?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in the F.I.R. No.22 of 2003 dated 2-2-2003 registered under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C., Police Station Fareed Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that all the co-accused of the petitioner i.e. Mst. Khalida Bibi, Mst. Khurshid Bibi, Zubair and Mst. Anwar Bibi have been found innocent bythe police and have not been arrested by the police. Further submits that according to doctor's opinion there was no marks of violence on the body of the deceased; that petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 10 months and his further detention would not serve any useful purpose; that petitioner was minor at the time of alleged occurrence, as at that time his age was 16 years 8 months and 20 days according to school leaving certificate as mentioned in Zimini dated 13-11-2003; that case of the petitioner was separated under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance; that petitioner was allegedly empty-handed and there was no intention or cause to kill the deceased. Further submits that in fact complainant's sister had contracted marriage with the petitioner with her own free will and due to this grudge the complainant had lodged this F.I.R.
Against the petitioner and his close relatives.
3. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the grant of bail.
4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Record reveals that all the co-accused of the petitioner had already been declared innocent and even their pre- arrest bail application was withdrawn, as they were not required by the police. In fact no such occurrence had taken place. The complainant's sister had contracted marriage with the petitioner with her free consent and out of this grudge the petitioner has been involved in this case. Police record also reveals that at the time of occurrence petitioner's age was about 16 years, 8 months and 20 days according to school leaving certificate. Therefore, his case was separated for his trial under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance. Admittedly the petitioner was empty-handed and the allegation against him is that he was sitting on the chest of the deceased whereas the other co-accused were giving kick and fist blows to the deceased. The said co-accused have already been declared innocent but the petitioner has not been given the same treatment, which makes the case of the petitioner that of further enquiry. Petitioner was arrested on 14-2-2003 and since then he is behind the bars. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the minor petitioner behind the bars. According to school leaving certificate and findings of the police petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence, therefore, his case also falls under the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. Entitling him to be released on bail. In this view of the matter I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.