IMRAN BHATTI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of committing sodomy against a minor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, considering the deletion of the offence under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 from the F.I.R., the applicability of section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and the petitioner's age. The Court held that the petitioner should be admitted to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that, prima facie, the offence under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 was not made out based on the F.I.R. contents. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the petitioner's status as a minor (approximately 15 years old) and a student, alongside the absence of medical evidence of injury, as compelling grounds for relief. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case and the accused is a juvenile, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail pending trial.
- Does the absence of medical evidence of injury justify the grant of bail in a case involving alleged sexual offences?
- Can the age of the accused be a primary factor in granting bail for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case regarding the charged offence?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' The petitioner is accused of committing an act of sodomy with Ahsan Akram aged 7-1/4 years son of Muhammad Akram Rana complainant. A case under section 377 P.P.C. And section 12 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R.
No,84 of 1999 on 25-3-1999. An application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 25-5-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that offence under section , 377 P.P.C. Has been deleted from the F.I.R. Regarding section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, the learned counsel submits that the same is not prima facie attracted. Further contends that the petitioner is not an adult within the meaning of the said Ordinance. I find on record a birth entry stated to be pertaining to the petitioner, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 24-11-1984, which makes the age of the petitioner about 15 years. According to the medical report no internal or external injury on the relevant parts of the body was found. The petitioner is stated to be a student of class 6th in a local school. He is in judicial lock-up since the last more than three months. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie a case under section 12 of the said Ordinance is not made out from the contents of the F.I.R. I am also inclined to grant relief A in view of the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is a student. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- NASIR IQBAL vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1022