MUHAMMAD HASNAIN Versus State
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 13/2019 registered under sections 380, 457, 427, and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Aliabad District Hunza, concerning allegations of theft and arson based on a co-accused's statement. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given their juvenile status at the time of the alleged offense, the absence of recoveries or eye-witnesses, and the application of the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a discharged co-accused. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The court held that since the petitioners were 12 years old at the time of the occurrence, the question of whether they had attained sufficient maturity of understanding under section 83 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry, and that the rule of consistency applied as a co-accused had been discharged under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether a juvenile accused aged twelve years is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case against him rests on a co-accused's statement without supporting recoveries or eye-witnesses?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused facing similar allegations has been discharged by the police?
- How does the lack of sufficient maturity of understanding under section 83 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 affect the grant of bail to a child offender?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 83, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ALI BAIG, J. ---Petitioner/accused namely Muhammad Hasnain son of Ramzan Ali and Sahib Ali son of Yousaf Ali through the instant petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13-5-2019 under sections 380, 457, 427, 436, P.P.C. at Police Station Aliabad District Hunza.
2. Briefly, allegation against the petitioners/accused as narrated in the FIR is that during investigation of case FIR No. 10/2019 under section 381-A registered at Police Station Aliabad Hunza against accused namely Talib Hussain disclosed that on the intervening night of 12/13- 5-2019 he, and present petitioners/accused along with other co-accused had stolen Rs.1600/- from Hunza Medical Centere Aliabad and also set on fire a bed of Hunza Medical Center Aliabad.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contens that on the statement of one of co-accused, namely Talib Hssain this case has been registered against the petitioners and no eye-witness has witnessed the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that one co-accused of the petitioners namely Karar Hussain has been discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C. by the police, hence rule of consistency applies to the case of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that no recovery of stolen amount has been effected from the petitioners and petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence, hence the petitioners are entitled for concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the instant petition and submitted that the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that offence under sections 457 and 436 fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The learned Dy. AG further contends that immediately after the occurrence the accused petitioners absconded and they have been arrested on 24.12.2019, thus the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The FIR against the present petitioners/accused was lodged on the statement of one of the co-accused of the petitioners during investigation of another Criminal case FIR No. 10/2019 registered under section 381-A. No eye-witness has witnessed the occurrence neither any recovery is effected from the petitioners nor any confession is made by them nor have been identified in any identification parade nor there exists any evidence against the petitioners/accused. Moreover, both the accused/ petitioners were juvenile at the time of occurrence as per their birth registration certificate date of birth of petitioner Sahib Ali has been mentioned as 05-01-2007 and date of birth of petitioner Muhammad Hasnain has been mentioned as 03-03-2007 and they were 12 years old at the time of commission of alleged offence.
7. Under the provisions of section 83 of P.P.C. nothing is offence which is done by a child above, 10 years of age and under 14 who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to, judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
8. Furthermore co-accused of present petitioners namely Karar Hussain has also been discharged by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C., thus rule of consistency applies to the case of the petitioners.
9. For what has been discussed above and keeping in view the rule of consistency and law referred above, which fully supports the case of the petitioners, I accept this bail petition and admit the petitioners to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned vacations/Duty Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit. File
ADN/14/GB Bail allowed.