IFTIKHAR AHMED and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 335, 337-F(vi), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging they caused injuries to the complainant with sharp-edged weapons. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on the claim that one petitioner was a 'child' under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, and whether the delay in the trial constituted sufficient grounds for the grant of bail after previous bail applications had been dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any fresh grounds for bail. It observed that the petitioners were specifically named in the F.I.R. and that the trial had not suffered from inordinate delay since the dismissal of their previous bail applications. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, reaffirming that without a change in circumstances or proof of unreasonable trial delay, bail cannot be granted to accused persons facing serious charges involving sharp-edged weapons.
- Does the status of being a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of delay in trial if there has been no significant delay since the dismissal of a previous bail application?
- Does the specific naming of accused persons in an F.I.R. for injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons influence the court's discretion in granting bail?
- Section 335, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
' RUSTAM ALI. MALIK, J.---The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,134 of 2003 registered on 6-7-2003 in Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal under sections 335, 337-F(vi) and 34, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Mehmood Ahmad, complainant, regarding an occurrence which had taken place on 1-7-2003 around 8-00 a.m. Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner had allegedly given a blow with a Tapa (a sharp-edged instrument used for cutting meat) to Kabir Hussain P.W. While Zulfiqar petitioner No,2 gave a blow to Kabir Hussain aforesaid with the Chhura (used for cutting meat).
Their third companion Kala also gave him a Chhuri blow.
' Although he was seriously injured, however Kabir Hussain tried to run away in order to save his life but Iftikhar Hussain raised Lalkara exhorting his co-accused to finish him off. However Kabir Hussain entered, the house of Malik Muhammad Anwar running and bolted the door from the inside. The inmates of the house of Muhammad Anwar raised alarm and on which a number of persons gathered and the assailants went away while issuing threats.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that petitioner No,2 is a 'child' within the meaning of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and as such he is entitled to the concession of bail on the said ground as well. He has argued that although the previous bail application of the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court, yet thereafter there has been no progress in the trial whatsoever and hence the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail on the said ground as well i.e, on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial.
5. The application has been resisted. It may be pointed out here that the previous bail application of Zulfiqar Ali petitioner (Crl. Misc. No,138-B-2004) had been dismissed by this Court on 23-2-2004 while the bail application of Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner (Crl. Misc. No,2589-B-2004) had been dismissed on 18-5-2004 and hence it cannot be said in any way that there has been any inordinate delay in the disposal of the case after the dismissal of the previous bail application of the petitioners. The petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R. And are alleged to have caused injuries to Kabir Hussain, the injured P.W. With sharp-edged weapons i.e, a Tapa and Chhura, both of which are used by the butchers for cutting meat. There does not appear to be any fresh ground available to the petitioner for the grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.