SAJJAD AHMED vs MUHAMMAD AAMAR And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the respondent was admitted to post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 solely on the ground of minority. The core legal question concerns whether minority alone constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a capital case, notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised regarding the improper exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail requires detailed examination, particularly where the accused is alleged to have played a principal role in opening fire on the deceased. The principle laid down is that while courts possess the discretion to grant bail to minors in cases punishable with death or transportation for life, such discretion must be exercised by duly considering the attendant circumstances and gravity of the crime rather than relying solely on the age of the accused.
- Whether minority alone is a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case punishable with death?
- Can the attendant circumstances of a crime be ignored while exercising discretion to grant bail to a minor accused of murder?
- Does the specific role of opening fire on the deceased outweigh the ground of minority when considering a bail petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SAIDUZZMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Leave is sought by the petitioner in the above case against the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 21-9-1994 whereby a learned Judge in chambers admitted Muhammad Aamer, respondent, to bail in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C on the sole ground of minority.
2. In seeking leave to appeal against the order of learned Judge of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following observations in the case Imam Din v.
3. Muhammad Rafique etc. (1983 SCM R 791):-- "After examining the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was not at all a fit case for the grant of bail. It is true that if an accused person is below the age of 16 years, the Court has a discretion to allow bail even in a case punishable with death or transportation for life, but while exercising this discretion, the attendant circumstances of the crime cannot be lost sight of. In the instant case we find that according to the allegations made by the prosecution it was the respondent who opened the attack on the deceased who was an elderly man, and fired several shots at him from a revolver. The circumstance that he might have acted under the influence of the older co-accused Liaqat does not appear to have any bearing on the respondent's culpability.
4. We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and cancel the bail granted to the respondent. He shall be taken into custody and remanded to the judicial lock-up for the duration of the trial. "
5. It is contended by the learned counsel that mere fact that respondent No. l was a minor was not sufficient in the circumstances of the case to admit him to bail in a case under section 302, P.P.C as the respondent was solely responsible for the death of the deceased by making repeated fires from the crime weapon. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.