MOEEN AKHTAR alias MEENOO vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Moeen Akhtar alias Meenoo, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 333 dated 11-9-2005 registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari, for allegedly firing at and injuring the complainant's father. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of juvenility, non-repetition of fire, and delay in the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the occurrence according to his school leaving certificate, and relying on precedent from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the juvenility of an accused person at the time of the alleged occurrence, along with the circumstances of the case, constitutes a valid ground for granting the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether juvenility of an accused at the time of the occurrence is a ground for post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolutely bar the grant of bail in juvenile cases?
- Whether delay in the submission of challan and lack of progress in trial justifies the grant of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, Petitioner Moeen Akhtar alias Meenoo, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,333, dated 11-9-2005, offence under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Gaggo, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari for the allegations that the petitioner while armed with .30 bore pistol along with his co-accused made a fire, which hit Abdul Khaliq, father of the complainant and the same pierced through the neck of the victim, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention due to party faction. The petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence, therefore, his case falls under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. According to the F.I.R. The petitioner fired only one fire and did not repeat the same and the injury attributed to him is on non-vital part of the body of the victim, making his case that of further inquiry into his guilt. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required by the police. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 30-9- 2005, but no progress has been made so far. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Anwar v.
The State 1993 SCMR 1001, therefore, petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
3. Conversely, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioner is specifically nominated irl the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injuries with his .30 bore pistol on the vital part of the body of the victim. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that according to the school leaving certificate, the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence and was sixteen years of age. Relying on the above said authority of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.