2015 GBLR 165

State Versus HAZARAT HUSSAIN

Citation2015 GBLR 165

CourtSupreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan

Judge(s)Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, C.J., Raja Jalal-ud-Din and Muzaffar Ali

ORDER

1. RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, whereby application filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. for the grant of post arrest bail was accepted and the respondent/accused was ordered to be released on bail.

2. The facts, in short, giving rise to file this petition are that a case FIR No. 17/2012 dated 24-04-2012, was registered with Police Station Darrel under sections 302/114, 429, P.P.C. for an occurrence which had taken place on 24-04-2012. The case was registered at the instance of Bismillah against Hazarat Hussain respondent herein for causing the murder of Mehboob Ullah and Muhammad Ullah, who was challaned to face the trial. During the course of investigation accused was arrested on 29-04-2012.The respondent moved a post arrest bail petition in the Court of Sessions Judge Diamer. The petition was dismissed vide order dated 22/12/2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He, thereafter, moved a post arrest bail petition in the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, which came up for hearing in the court of learned single Judge and the same was accepted vide order dated 29-04-2014, hence this petition.

3. The learned Advocate General, Gilgit-Baltistan as well as counsel for the respondent have been heard and perused the record.

4. Admittedly the trial of the respondent was being conducted by the Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000. The respondent was arrested on 29/04/2012. The examination of the record and the statement made by the learned counsel of respondent at bar indicates that the statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded and the next date of hearing for the recording of statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. is fixed. It means that the trial is almost concluded.

5. The learned Advocate General in an answer to question as to whether the respondent has misused the concession of bail. He could not point out any thing from the record. The grounds for the grant of post arrest bail are absolutely different that of cancellation of bail. The perusal of the record transpires that the respondent has not misused the concession of bail at all and no ground, at this stage of the case, is made out to cancel the bail already granted to him. He remained in attendance before the court on each and every date of hearing.

6. On the receipt of challan of this case the same was entrusted to the learned Additional and Sessions Judge Diamer for trial. The learned counsel for the respondent made an application stating therein that the accused is juvenile and case is exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge. In view of this the matter was referred to the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan for necessary orders. The case was accordingly transferred to the Sessions Court Diamer for trial. It is no body's case that the trial has not been conducted by the Court constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

7. Even otherwise the in-hand case is time barred by fourteen days (14 days) for which the learned Advocate General Gilgit Baltistan has not given any plausible reason to condone the same. On the other hand a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent which cannot be taken away without any cogent reason. The law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. The learned Advocate General has not made an application for condonation of the delay.

8. The respondent has also been declared juvenile by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction and as per his record date of birth of respondent was 02/05/1999, at the time of commission of offence. He was at that time THIRTEEN YEARS, SEVEN MONTHS AND NINETEEN DAYS OLD.

9. Without dilating upon the merits and demerits of the case lest it may cause prejudice to the case of either of the party. Since the case in hand is concluded before the trial court and judgment is likely to be given within the shortest possible time. In this view of the matter no case for the cancellation of bail is made out.

10. In view of what has been discussed above the judgment/order dated 29-04-2013 impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The petition is meritless and the same is dismissed.

11. HBT/167/GB Petition dismissed.