MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused, Muhammad Ramzan, charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged attempt to murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being a juvenile, was entitled to mandatory bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, given that he had been detained for over four months without the conclusion of his trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, aged 13/14 years, qualified as a 'child' under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Relying on the statutory mandate of Section 10(7) of the Ordinance, the Court observed that a child accused of an offence not punishable by death or life imprisonment must be released on bail if detained for a continuous period exceeding four months without the trial concluding. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the statutory right of a juvenile to release when trial delays are not attributable to the accused, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
- Is a juvenile accused of an offence not punishable by death or life imprisonment entitled to mandatory bail if detained for more than four months without trial conclusion?
- How is a 'child' defined for the purposes of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
- Under what circumstances can a juvenile's bail be cancelled if the trial is not concluded within the specified timeframe?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 2(b), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
- Section 10(7), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case No.328, dated 6-10-2006 under section 324/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Khushab.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made a fire shot which hit the legs of the victim.
3. Precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is aged about 13/14 years and has been declared juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and is behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 10-10-2006 and on merits it is contended that the injured P.W. received injuries on the non-vital part of his body. It is further urged that the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause.
4. Conversely; learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant petition and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence and he made an attempt on the life of the victim by repeating two fire shots but it was luck of the victim that he was saved otherwise the intention committed under is apparent from the record. It is further submitted that after investigation he has been found guilty and challan has been submitted in the Court.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. The occurrence took place on 6 10-2006 and the petitioner was examined by a medical board. According to its report, the age of the petitioner is about 13/14 years. The opinion of the Medical Board is not disputed by other side. "The child" under section 2(b) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 has been defined as a person who at the time of commission of offence has not attained the age of 18 years. It is contemplated under sec tion 10(7) and proviso (c) to section 10(7) of the Ordinance that notwithstanding any thing contained in Code and except where a Juvenile Court is of the opinion that delay in trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf or in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force, a child who for commission of an offence has been detained shall be released on bail who being accused of any offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been detained for such an offence for a continuous period exceeding four months and whose trial for such an offence has not concluded.
7. Apparently, the petitioner is child within the meaning of provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and the petitioner is in jail since the last more than four months and his trial is not started, even charge has not been framed in the case.
8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within six months and if it is not concluded due to the conduct of the petitioner, the prosecution/complainant may move this Court for cancellation of bail.
H.B.T./M-566/L Bail granted.