QAMAR ZAMAN vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent was charged under Sections 377, 324, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting unnatural carnal intercourse and firing shots at the complainant, causing injuries. The trial court had granted bail primarily on the ground of the respondent's minority under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Upon review, the High Court observed that the respondent was directly charged, the allegations were supported by a judicial confession, and the weapon of offence was recovered at his pointation. Furthermore, an ossification test determined the respondent's age to be 20 years, negating the claim of minority. The Court held that the offence was heinous, involved moral turpitude, and fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court found the trial court's discretion in granting bail to be improperly exercised, allowed the petition, and recalled the bail order.
- Does the status of being a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 automatically entitle an accused to bail in heinous offences?
- Can bail be cancelled if the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in granting it?
- Does an ossification test result indicating an age of 20 years preclude the application of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
- Does a judicial confession and recovery of the weapon of offence constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
- 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
' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Qamar Zaman Khan, complainant/petitioner, has filed this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of 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 F.I.R. No,430, dated 14-9-2008 under sections 377/324/511, P.P.C. Of Police Station Saddar D.I. Khan.
2. According to the report of the complainant/petitioner on the eventful day at 1130 hours, he along with 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 carnal 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 unnatural 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.I. Khan 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 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. Disentitling 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 to the accused/respondent through the impugned order is recalled. He is present in Court, be 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- WASEEM BASHIR vs The STATE and others 2016 P Cr. L J 454
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs GHULAM MURTAZA and another 2014 PLD Lahore 503