Waqas Iqbal vs The State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302, 322, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the primary ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and had been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year without the conclusion of his trial, thus qualifying for mandatory bail under Section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the offence and pointing out that the petitioner's juvenile status was yet to be formally determined. The Lahore High Court held that based on the school leaving certificate and matriculation certificate, the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the incident and, having been detained for over one year without the trial concluding, was entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The key principle laid down is that a juvenile accused detained for over a year for an offence punishable with death, whose trial has not concluded, has a statutory right to be released on bail.
- Whether a juvenile accused charged with an offence punishable with death is entitled to bail after being detained for a continuous period exceeding one year without the conclusion of the trial?
- Can school leaving and matriculation certificates be relied upon to determine the age of an accused claiming juvenile status for the purpose of bail?
- Does the statutory right to bail for juveniles under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 override the heinous nature of the offence alleged?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 10, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.- The accused/petitioner has sought for Bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 226/2006, dated 9.5.2006 offence under Section 302, P.P.C later on added Sections 322 and 325, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Gaggo District Vehari.
2. Brief facts as unfolded in FIR against the accused petitioner is that he alongwith other co- accused namely Mrs. Hashmi gave poison to Mst. Sanober Bashir in result of which she died in the hospital, hence the instant case was registered against him.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was arrested on 6.10.2006 as such the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and five days; that the petitioner seeks his bail before this Court on the main ground that the petitioner is a Juvenile and as such entitled to the grant of bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 under sub-section (7) of Section 10; that according to the school leaving certificate attached with this petition as Annexurt "C", the petitioner y)vas born on 6.11.1989 as well as Matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan as such, the petitioner was 16 years and three months and at the time of;'occurrence as such he is entitled to the concession of bail under the .
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Further there is no direct evidence against the petitioner as such it is a case of further inquiry At later stage Section 322 and 325, P.P.C. Has been added as well as Sections 34, P.P.C.; that the petitioner has committed no offence. False case has been registered against the petitioner, that main co-accused in the case has been found innocent by the police and has been placed in column No. 2 of the challan which prove that the prosecution case is false and concocted to involve the petitioner illegally.
4. On the other hand, Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application with the averments that the petitioner is yet to be declared as Juvenile that motive has been attributed to the petitioner in the F I R which , has been promptly loci.'!'-d ti ed the petitioner has committed a very heinous offence in this regard reliance is placed upon 2004 SCM R 121 Muhammad' Zaku v The State".
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of file prima facie shows that according to the school leaving certificate as well as matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan for petitioner at the time of incident was 16 years and three months as such the petitioner becomes entitled to the grant of bail as propounded in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 are read as follows:--- "a child who, for commission of an offence has been detained shall be released on bail.
(a) If, being accused of an offence punishable with death has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and whose trial for such an offence has not concluded."
In the present case, the accused petitioner was solicited the concession of bail under the Juvenile- Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is subject to the limitation of being continuously in custody for a period of one year and whose trial for such offence has not been concluded that after the arrest of the petitioner on 6.10.2006, the petitioner has continuously being in judicial lock-up for a period of ode year and five days as such he is entitled to the concession of bail; that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the complainant 2004 SCM R 121 "Muhammad Zakir v. The State" is to be taken into consideration by the Trial Court at the time while deciding the same for conducting a separate trial under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 whereas judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to a case pertaining to the grant of bail as. Such both the judgments are distinguishable. Relying upon 1998 SCMR 1001 "Muhammad Anwar v. The State" bail is granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench.