SALAHUDDIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that denied post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a juvenile accused of involvement in a car-snatching incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was thirteen years old at the time of the alleged offense, was entitled to bail given the complainant's testimony regarding his specific role. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, specifically the complainant's cross-examination, which indicated that the individuals who remained with the car did not play an active role in the commission of the offense. Furthermore, the Court found that the High Court had misread the evidence by attributing the act of driving the car to the petitioner, a fact not supported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should be granted when the prosecution's evidence, upon careful scrutiny, fails to establish a prima facie case of active participation by the accused.
- Does a misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding the role of an accused justify the Supreme Court's intervention in a bail matter?
- Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail when the complainant's testimony indicates they did not play an active role in the commission of the offense?
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 10-2-1994.
2. According to the prosecution version, on 27-6-1993 at about 4-30 p.m. The four accused chased the complainant Haji Khan Muhammad in their car. The complainant was overtaken, while the petitioner remained sitting in the car. The other two accused approached the complainant and demanded possession of his vehicle, but he offered resistance. In order to overpower him, one of the two accused fired with his pistol and injured the right leg of the complainant. The accused persons made good their escape with both vehicles.
3. The present petitioner submitted an application for grant of bail. According to the learned counsel the petitioner is a student of 6th class and his age is about 13 years. He did not take active part in the commission of the offence. He was under the influence of his uncle who picked him up in his car for a round of the town. The learned High Court rejected the bail application on A the ground that the petitioner was driving the car, which followed the complainant and intercepted him.
4. We have read the statement of the complainant. In cross-examination he stated that those two boys, who remained standing with the car, did not play any role in the commission of offence.
There is nothing in the statement of the complainant that the present petitioner was driving the car. There appears to be misreading of evidence. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,20000 with two sureties each in the alike amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Quetta.