IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Iftikhar Hussain petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 235 of 1997 registered under sections 324/337-A(ii) and 337-F(i)/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Karor, District Layyah. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioner to post-arrest bail on the grounds of juvenile age and the nature of the injuries attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as the offence charged is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the injury attributed to him was on a non-vital part without repetition, and he was a juvenile aged approximately 15 years and 3 months at the time of the occurrence. The court laid down the principle that a juvenile accused whose offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and who satisfies the statutory age criteria is entitled to the concession of bail under proviso I to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether a juvenile accused is entitled to bail under proviso I to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does an injury attributed to an accused on a non-vital part of the body without repetition warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Iftikhar Hussain petitioner has moved this application for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,235 of 1997 registered on 11-8-1997 under sections 324/337-A(ii) and 337-F(i)/109/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. The prosecution case, as is evident from the F.I.R., is that on 11-8-1997 at about Deegarwela time Nazir Ahmad complainant was going to Basti Kaneeran and when he passed by the Dera of Doctor Bashir Khan suddenly, Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner armed with 12 bore gun, Saadat Ali with .12 bore and Iftikhar Ahmad with Chhuri came out of a hide out. They raised Lalkara that they would not let him go alive. Both Mukhtar Hussain petitioner and Saadat co-accused fired successively upon him with their respective fire-arms and hit his left shin and ankle. He fell down and Iftikhar Hussain petitioner gave him Chhuri blows on his chest. He tried to hold him out with his left hand but the accused gave him butt blows on his head and body. His hand was injured. On his alarm, Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam and others residents of the village reached there. On seeing them the assailants fled away towards their house. Motive was that the previous litigation was pending between the parties. Accordingly, the present case was registered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Nazir Ahmad complainant sustained 12 injuries. All the injuries were caused with fire-arms and only the injury sustained on his right hand was caused with sharp-edged weapon. The same injury is attributed to the petitioner. It is not on the vital part of the body of the injured P.W. And the blows were not repeated. The offences are not covered by the prohibitory clause. School leaving certificate of the petitioner has been produced. According to it, he was of the age of 15 years and 3 months at the time of occurrence. He becomes entitled to the concession of bail under proviso I to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1983 SCM R 1001). The petitioner was arrested on 25-9-1997 and since then he is in judicial lock-up. For the reasons the petitioner is held entitled to the grant of bail.
5. Resultantly the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of .A.C./Duty Magistrate Layyah.