Sher Dil and another vs The State
This bail application concerns two applicants, Sher Dil and Shah Jehan, charged under Sections 337-L(2), 336, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly assaulting the complainant, the mother of the first applicant, over a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence, and the minority status of one applicant. The Court held that the first applicant, Sher Dil, was not entitled to bail, as the motive for the alleged assault—depriving his mother of her legal property share—was specifically attributed to him. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the second applicant, Shah Jehan, finding his case distinguishable due to his minority, supported by a birth certificate, which suggested he acted under his father's influence. The Court emphasized that while bail is a matter of judicial discretion, the gravity of the offense, particularly involving violence against parents, warrants distinct treatment. The Court further clarified that the trial court retains the authority to cancel bail if the minor applicant absconds.
- Is a minor accused entitled to bail if the court finds they acted under the influence of an adult co-accused?
- Does a trial court have the authority to cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused becomes an absconder?
- Can bail be denied to an accused when the motive for the alleged crime is specifically attributed to them?
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
FAHIM AHM ED SIDDIQUI, J. The present bail application is moved on behalf of applicants Sher Dil and Shah Jehan, who are seeking their release on bail during trial in a case registered against them at Police Station Sakrand, District Shaheed Benazirabad vide Crime ' No. 38 of 2020 under Sections 337-L(2), 336 and 34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for applicant has pressed instant bail application on several grounds including civil dispute, lodging of an earlier FIR by the complainant, misapplication of penal sections in FIR, and the minority of applicant No.2. The learned A.P.G. duly assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed the complainant is an elderly woman who is the mother of applicant No.1 and granny of applicant No.2 but they did not hesitate to raise their hands upon the complainant.
3. After hearing the arguments from either side, I have scanned the entire material available on record. From whatever articulated and placed before me, I have observed as under:
(a) The allegations against the applicants are that they entered into the house of complainant (mother of applicant No. 1) while armed with baton and iron rod and used the same on the soul of complainant. Allegedly, she received severe injuries and presently she lost mobility of her left hand.
(b) The motive of incident is the demand of complainant to her son (applicant No.1) to handover her legal share from the properties of her husband.
(c) The W.M.O. is present in Court, as she was called by this Court through an earlier order. She explained that final medical certificate could not be received due to Covid-19 pandemic and without radiologist report she is unable to say how much damage caused to the complainant.
(d) Although, the counsel for applicant denies the incident, but at the same time he stresses that Section 336 is misapplied, and neither any bony structure is applied nor functionality of any organ is caused.
(e) So far misapplication of Section 336 and loss of functionality of hand (itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw) is concerned, the same cannot be established without the final medical certificate, which is still awaited.
(f) The contention of learned counsel regarding admitted animosity is concerned, the same does not bear weight, and, astonishingly, a son is claiming relief against his mother on the ground of admitted animosity.
(g) It goes against the applicant No.1 that his mother (complainant) alleges against him (applicant No.1) for depriving of her due share and further charging for attacking upon her with baton and iron-rod.
(h) There are plenty verses of Holy Quran and teeming numbers of Hadith of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) regarding rights of parents. I am recalling a Hadith in which disobeying the parents and harming them is not only condemned but also described such act as the most serious and detestable sin. In another tradition, it is mentioned as one of the most serious and greatest sins (Akbar-ul-Kabaair).
(i) Nevertheless, a plea of the minority is raised for applicant No.2 Shah Jehan, which is duly supported by her birth certificate. Being minor, it is quite comprehendible that he participated under the influence of his father (applicant No.1), hence his case is distinguishable.
4. Because of the above observation, I came to the conclusion that the applicant No.1 is not entitled to bail as the motive is solely against him, while applicant No.2 being minor was entitled for bail, hence on 13.05.2020, the following short order was passed whereby the applicant No.2 Shah, Jehan son of Sher Dil Rind is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 [Rupees One Hundred Thousand only] and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. While bail plea of applicant No.1 Sher Dil son of Sher Muhammad Rind, is declined and above are the reasons for the same.
"Heard arguments.
For the reasons to be recorded later on, applicant No.2 namely, Shah Jehan son of Sher Dil Rind is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000.00 [Rupees One Hundred Thousand only] and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
While bail application of applicant No.1 namely, Sher Dil son of Sher Muhammad Rind, is declined".
5. Before parting, I would like to further observe that if the applicant No.2, after getting bail fail to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied that he becomes absconder then trial Court is fully authorized to take every action against him and his surety including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court.