NIAMAT ALI vs THE STATE and others
The petitioner, Niamat Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a four-year-old child under section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the juvenile petitioner, aged about 14/15 years and whose co-accused had already been granted bail, was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the completion of the investigation and the period already spent behind bars. The Lahore High Court held that despite the gravity of the charge involving paedophilia, the circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's juvenile status, completed investigation, and the grant of bail to a co-accused, warranted the acceptance of the petition. The court laid down the principle that juvenile offenders facing serious charges may be granted post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete, parity of treatment exists with a co-accused on bail, and the facts and circumstances of the case otherwise justify the relief.
- Whether a juvenile accused of an unnatural offence is entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation is complete?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused entitle another accused facing similar allegations to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be granted in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under special circumstances?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Niamat Ali petitioner seeks post arrest bail on the allegation that he along with his co-accused Mohsan Ali (real brother) committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with Afzaal Hussain aged about four years turn by turn.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two real brothers have been falsely involved in this case; equilateral allegations were levelled by the prosecution against petitioner and his co- accused Mohsan Ali who has been granted bail whereas petitioner refused, by the learned trial court and more so petitioner as per prosecution's own case is aged about 14/15 years and he being juvenile is also entitled for concession of bail. Further submits that petitioner is behind the bars since 5-3-2012; investigation is over and he is no more required for further investigation, therefore, he may be granted bail.
3. Learned DDPP has opposed bail application on the grounds that minor was induced to the house of the petitioner where he was subjected to sodomy/unnatural offence by the petitioner and his co-accused and MLR of Afzaal victim carried out on 28-2-2012, the same supports to the prosecution version and offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Further submits that petitioner being 'paeddiatrician is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. Heard and record perused.
5. Petitioner is juvenile as he is less than 15 years. He is behind the bars since 5-3-2012. Investigation is complete. Co-accused is on bail. No doubt, he is under the charge of paedophilia but circumstances warrant to accept instant petition. Thus, instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.