QAMAR ZAMAN vs STATE and another
This application was brought under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan, in a case registered under Sections 377, 324, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question was whether the lower court properly exercised its judicial discretion in admitting the accused to bail on the ground of minority under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The High Court observed that the accused was directly charged with firing effective shots at the complainant, made a confession before a Judicial Magistrate, and led to the recovery of the weapon of offence. Furthermore, an ossification test determined his age to be 20 years. The High Court held that minority does not confer a licence to attempt at the lives of others, and heinous offences involving moral turpitude fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bail was recalled and the accused remanded to custody.
- Does minority confer an entitlement or licence to bail when an accused is charged with an attempt on the life of another person?
- Whether bail granted to an accused can be cancelled under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. where the trial court relied on minority but an ossification test assessed the accused as an adult?
- Can the concession of bail be sustained where the tentative assessment of evidence in a heinous offence brings the matter within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Qamar Zaman Khan, complainant/petitioner, has filed this application under' Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of bail granted to Abdul Sattar Khan, Accused/Respondent No, 2, granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI D.I.Khan on 16/2/2009 in case FIR No, 430 dated 14/9/2008 under Sections 377/324/511 PPC of Police Station Saddar D.I.Khan.
2. According to the report of the complainant/petitioner on the eventual day at 1130 hours, he alongwith Abdul Sattar Khan, accused/respondent, was coming on foot to his house and when reached the lands situated within the limits of Garrah Balo, Abdul Sattar asked to go with him towards the Jungle for committing unnatural cornal intercourse with him. He took out pistol from his shalwar and effectively fired two shots at him with which he was hit on his hand and chest and on raising hue and cry, the accused decamped from the spot.
3. I have carefully examined record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused/respondent was directly charged by the complainant/petitioner for effectively firing two shots at him with which he was injured. The charge is duly supported by the un-natural lust of the accused/respondent. The accused/respondent has made a clean breast confession before the Judicial Magistrate about the charge and the weapon of offence was recovered at his pointation. The only ground which prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.LKhan was that the accused/respondent was minor and under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, he is to be dealt with leniently. According to the Ossification test, the age of the accused/respondent has been determined to be 20 years and even minority will not art confer a license to a person to attempt at the lives of others. The offence is heinous and of moral turpitude. Tentative assessment of the materials so far brought on record brings the case within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. dis-entitling the accused/respondent to the concession of bail, which discretion has not been properly exercised by the learned Court below.
5. Thus, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan in granting bail to the accused/respondent is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the bail granted to the accused/respondent through the impugned order is recalled. He is present in Court taken into custody and remanded to the judicial custody to face trial in due course of time.
Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.