GHULAM DASTGIR Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal bail petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 746 registered under sections 394 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail considering their juvenility, period of incarceration, and the nature of the allegations against them. The Court held that the petitioners have made out a case for bail, noting that one of the petitioners is under sixteen years of age and thus covered by the beneficial provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that they have been in custody for a considerable period, that no identification parade was held, and that their further detention would serve no useful purpose. The key legal principle laid down is that juvenile offenders whose cases fall outside the prohibitory clause or who satisfy statutory exceptions are ordinarily entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Whether a juvenile accused is entitled to bail under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of an identification parade in a case where the accused are allegedly identified in car light warrant the grant of bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without the necessity of further police investigation justifies releasing the accused on bail?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners seek bail in case F.I.R. No. 746, dated 24-8-1999, under section 394/412, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. is that the complainant (Muhammad Ramzan) is running a Tractor Workshop. On 21/22-8-1999 at about 8 p.m. he alongwith Tariq Sharif and brother Fateh Muhammad were going in the car towards his house while Mushtaq was also going on Hota Road on his own bicycle. When they reached near Mongi Crop of Muhammad Akram, three persons namely Muhammad Ahmad, armed with .30 bore pistol, Ghulam Dastgir and Muhammad Asif armed with fire-arms appeared and stopped Mushtaq, nephew of the complainant and took out Rs. 90 from his pocket. Mushtaq Ahmad intervened when Muhammad Ahmad hit a pistol fire which struck at left knee of Mushtaq. He fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the other two accused Ghulam Dastgir and Muhammad Asif caused injuries with butts of their pistols on his head and ear which started bleeding. When the complainant and others tried to intervene, two accused Muhammad Asif and Ghulam Dastgir snatched the bicycle and ran away, Muhammad Ahmad also succeeded in running away on account of dark night, hence, the said F.I.R. was registered against the culprits."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been involved on account of enmity and that they are students of below age of 16. He further argued that the petitioners are in jail since 16-9-1999. They are not required by the police for further investigation and that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R., for which, no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant. The petitioners are not the previous convict. He lastly contended that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the F.I.R. a fire-arm injury on the person of Mushtaq has been attributed to one Muhammad Ahmad, who has not been arrested so far. The petitioners are behind the bars since 16-9-1999. A school certificate of Ghulam Dastgir/petitioner has been placed on record, in which the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 3-8-1983. According to the said certificate, Ghulam Dastgir is less than 16 years of age and amount of Rs. 90 has been recovered from the petitioner. According to the prosecution story, the petitioners have been identified in the car light and the identification parade of the petitioners has not been conducted by the prosecution. No useful purpose would be served in detaining the petitioners in jail. The guilt of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the Court after recording the prosecution evidence. The petitioners are students and one Ghulam Dastgir petitioner is less than 16 years who is entitled for the concession of bail under proviso 1 of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been stated above, without prejudicing the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./G-55/L Bail allowed.
Cited by 2 cases
- SARFRAZ alias PUNNU N vs THE STATE 2004 P C R L J 302
- SARFRAZ Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 302