SAJID and 2 others vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged murder of a young man after unnatural carnal intercourse. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners, claiming to be under sixteen years of age, are entitled to the concession of bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the last-seen evidence, medical indicators, and recovered semen-stained clothing constitute sufficient grounds for withholding bail. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution has collected sufficient and natural last-seen evidence, and that the plea of minority is doubtful due to conflicting birth certificates. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that it was not a fit case for bail at the pre-trial stage. The key principle laid down is that where prima facie evidence links the accused to a heinous crime and the plea of minority remains disputed, bail ought to be refused.
- Are juvenile offenders under the age of sixteen automatically entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their actual date of birth is disputed through conflicting documents?
- Does reliable last-seen evidence coupled with incriminating circumstantial evidence like semen-stained clothing constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can a plea of minority raised for the purpose of bail be conclusively accepted at the pre-trial stage when contradictory birth certificates are placed on record?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' A case under section 302/147/149, P.P.C., at Police Station Chauntra is registered against the petitioners on the ground that they committed the murder of Asif Hussain after subjecting him to unnatural carnal intercourse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are less than 16 years of age and as such, their case would fall under proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. And they would be entitled to bail; that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners that they had actually killed the deceased after committing carnal intercourse with him; that the prosecution has only relied upon the last seen evidence without further collecting the incriminating evidence. A number of authorities were relied upon to show that in such-like cases, an offender is entitled to bail being a case of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has, however, opposed the bail application on the ground that there was no enmity between the parties so as to implicate the petitioners falsely in this case; that the petitioners acted callously and took the life of a young man of about 19/20 years of age to satisfy their beastly sexual lust by subjecting him to unnatural carnal intercourse; that the last seen evidence in this case is reliable because all the, witnesses are related to the deceased and being the family members residing in the same house, were also natural witnesses to see that the deceased had left the house in the company of the accused persons; that the birth certificate produced by Nisar petitioner was not only bogus but false as would be clear from his original birth certificate where his date of birth is recorded as 30- 11-1979; and that lastly, the investigation is already complete and the challan is ready for submission to the Court concerned.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to link all the petitioners with the occurrence. The last seen evidence is not only reliable but natural. There is no enmity between the parties. The injuries on the person of the deceased on the parts like knees, elbows and buttocks further gives a strong impression that he was subjected to carnal intercourse before he was done to death. The mere fact that the petitioners are stated to be less than 16 years of age is not established at this stage because another birth certificate is also produced which shows that the date of birth of Nisar Ahmad was 30-11,1979. The correct date of birth would become clear only when the entire evidence is put into juxtaposition. Though the anal swa bs were allegedly negative but the last worn clothes of the deceased indicate that there were semen stains on them which father speaks for a foul-play.
5. In view of my 'above discussion, I do not find it a fit case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- AHMAD MIR ALIA (HUDA) Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 149
- DILDAR and another vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1939
- Haji MUNIR vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1740
- AZIZ KHAN vs THE STATE and 2 others 2004 MLD 1408
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2177