Mujeeb Khan Versus State
Ijaz Anwar, J .--- Through instant bail application, accused petitioner Mujeeb Khan son of Zareen seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 42 dated 18.01.2005 registered under sections 302/324/34 P.P.C at Police Station Tangi, District Charsadda. It is pertinent to mention here that accused petitioner claims that at the time of registration of case against him, he was a juvenile and as such has sought his bail on statutory delay in conclusion of his trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 as well as on merits.
2. In the instant case, accused petitioner along with others has been charged for committing the murder of complainant Mst. Meher Angeza, her husband Hameed Ullah, her son Yousaf Khan and Mst. Sumaira daughter of Zareen by firing at them.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
4. On merits, perusal of record would transpire that accused petitioner has been directly charged in the FIR by Mst. Meher Angeza for attempting at her life as well as committing the murder of her husband Hameed Ullah, her son Yousaf Khan and Mst. Sumaira daughter of Zareen (sister of accused petitioner). According to narration of complainant, they had gone to the house of accused petitioner for asking the hand of Mst. Sumaira and the occurrence has taken place inside the house of accused petitioner. The report lodged by the complainant is in shape of dying declaration as the record suggests that later that day, she succumbed to her injuries. The medical evidence in shape of PM reports of all the four deceased (s) support the prosecution version. Recovery of blood, blood stained garments of deceased and empties of different bore from the spot further supplement the prosecution case. After the commission of the offence, accused petitioner went into hiding and remained fugitive from law for 17/18 years. Such long unexplained abscondance speaks volume of guilty conscience of accused petitioner and thus, he loses some of his normal rights to seek bail. In case titled Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 402), the august Supreme Court while commenting upon the conduct of an accused who remained absconder for long period of time held as under:
"It is also a well-established proposition that unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitles a person to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case-the principle being that the accused by his conduct thwarts the investigation qua him in which valuable evidence (like recoveries etc.) is simply lost or is made impossible to be collected (by his conduct). He cannot then seek a reward for such a conduct (in becoming fugitive from law)."
The accused petitioner, after his arrest has made pointation of the place of occurrence. Thus on merits, tentative assessment of the available record prima facie connects the accused petitioner with the commission of offence carrying punishment falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C disentitling him to concession of bail.
5. It was the contention of counsel for petitioner that accused petitioner at the time of occurrence was a juvenile and as such is to be treated according to the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 who has been behind the bars for a period exceeding the stipulated time provided by the Act ibid for release of a juvenile accused on bail in case his trial is not concluded within the stipulated period.
6. "Child" has been defined in section 2 (b) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 in the following words: "child" means a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained the age of eighteen years;
Whereas the preamble of the Act ibid shows that the "Act" has been made and promulgated for the purpose of providing protection to children involved in criminal litigation and their rehabilitation in society. The same is reproduced as under:
"WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for protection of children involved in criminal litigation, their rehabilitation in society, re-organization of juvenile courts and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto"
7. May be the accused petitioner at the time of occurrence was a juvenile, however, it is also a fact that after commission of the offence he went into hiding. No doubt, the provisions of the Act ibid provide for grant of bail to an accused person below the age of 18 years and also for release of such accused if his trial was not concluded within the time provided by the law, however, accused petitioner at the time of arrest was no more a juvenile. If the accused petitioner was arrested right after the commission of offence or at the age below 18 years, then the case would have been different. Thus, at this stage, the case of accused petitioner cannot be considered under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 for the purpose of bail. The trial of the accused petitioner has been commenced and the proceedings are in progress.
8. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands dismissed.
JK/171/P Application dismissed.