FAIZAN ABBAS and another vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court through a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking bail in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 153 of 2010 registered under Sections 302, 324, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with F.I.R. No. 170 of 2010 under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involve whether juvenile accused involved in heinous crimes resulting in murder and injury are entitled to bail on the grounds of minor age, and whether the principle of consistency applies when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail. The court held that minors committing gruesome murders are not entitled to bail merely on the ground of minority, as doing so would encourage parties to use minors for violent crimes. Furthermore, an erroneous grant of bail to a co-accused does not create a binding right to consistency for remaining accused, particularly where recoveries distinguish the cases. The application for bail was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether juvenile accused involved in heinous offences resulting in murder and injury are entitled to the concession of bail solely on the ground of minor age?
- Does the principle of consistency warrant granting bail to an accused merely because a co-accused assigned a similar role has been released on bail?
- Does an erroneous grant of bail to a co-accused by a lower court create a right to bail for the remaining accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, C.J.---This application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Is preferred for grant of bail charged under sections 302/324/114/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No. 153 of 2010 read with section 13 A.O. Vide F.I.R. No. 170 of 2010 of Police Station Cantt. Gilgit.
2. Counsel for the accused/petitioner claims bail on the ground of consistency as the accused/petitioner Tajamul son of Shakoor has been assigned equal role along with the present accused/petitioners and his case can not be bifurcated from the equal act and as such are entitled to concession of bail. Secondly it is pleaded that both the petitioners/ accused are minors who are 15 and 16 years as per their school leaving certificates. That both the accused/petitioners are entitled for concession of bail on the basis of their minor age and their detention in jail would further corrupt their tender minds and will come out as hard core criminals.
3. On the other hand the District Attorney Mr. Khalid Mehmood appearing on behalf of the State pleads that the case of Tajamol is different from the case of both the accused/petitioners because no recovery of weapon of offence has taken place and as such the case of the present accused/petitioners is not at par with the stated accused/petitioners.
4. I have gone through the F.I.R. And perused the record of the case with the able assistance of counsel for both the parties and find that as a result of the opening of the fire shots by the accused/petitioners one Khalid Jan has died due to receiving of fire shots and one Alamdar has been injured. The manner in which the offence has taken place and the planning of the same does not entitle the accused/petitioners for the concession of bail inspite of the fact that they may be minors in the light of their school leaving certificates presented. Minors acting in a gruesome manner whereby human lives are lost do not confer the right of concession of bail. It is also informed that both the parties have indulged in criminal activities whereby many persons have been killed and injured from both sides. If the concession of bail of minors is encouraged, then both the parties will come out in the field by enticing and encouraging minors to commit murders and later on availing the concession of bail on the ground of minority. Regarding the plea of consistency of the accused Tajamul I feel that if at all the case is consistent and if the lower Court has erred in granting, it does not entitle the remaining accused for the concession of bail. The role assigned to the bailed out accused is at par with the present petitioners except that no recovery has taken place from Tajamul. In such circumstances where the difference between the role of the accused depends on the non-recovery of weapon of offence from an accused, then also the courts should be very conscious before granting bail.
5. In view of the above discussions I have no hesitation in disagreeing bail to minors in such a situation hence the present application for bail of the accused/petitioners is hereby dismissed.