IMRAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an allegation of murder committed with a dagger. The petitioner contended that he was a juvenile, being under 16 years of age at the time of the incident, and thus entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the defense argued that the incident arose from 'Ghairat' (honor) due to alleged harassment by the deceased and his brother. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's specific role in the crime. The Court examined the school leaving certificate, which established the petitioner's age as approximately 14 years and 5 months at the time of the occurrence. Holding that the petitioner fell within the category of persons entitled to consideration under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that the element of 'Ghairat' necessitated further inquiry, the Court granted bail to the petitioner.
- Does the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a petitioner who is under 16 years of age?
- Can the issue of 'Ghairat' (honor) constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a school leaving certificate admissible evidence to determine the age of an accused for the purposes of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner is involved in the case F.I.R. No,804 of 1998 under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 9-10-1998 at 11-30 a.m. Complainant Abdul Ghani had gone to take his son Ghulam Murtaza after school hours. In his presence the petitioner and his brother Kamran, both armed with daggers, launched assault upon Ghulam Murtaza and preson, petitioner caused a dagger blow to the deceased on the left side of his chest who fell down. While Ghulam Mustafa brother of the deceased was inflicted two dagger blows by Kamran; brother of the petitioner. Ghulam Murtaza succumbed to the injuries. Earlier the bail was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif on 3-5-1999. The bail is now pressed on the ground that the petitioner is under age of 16 years and his case is covered by proviso I of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that only one blow has been attributed to him and that it has come in the investigation that the deceased and his brother were sodomists and used to tease the petitioner being of fair colour and complexion and, therefore, there was 'question of "Ghairat"'.
3. The bail is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named and specific role has been attributed to him.
4. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
5. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 25-4-1983 and on the relevant date age comes to 14 years 5 months and 15 days and the case of the petitioner is covered by proviso-I of section 497, Cr.P.C. It has been stated that the petitioner was born on 5-8-1981 and not on 25-4-1983 but the school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster Government High School 50/B.B. Pakpattan Sharif is on the record which fact could not be controverted and the case of the petitioner clearly comes under the first proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. The factum of "Ghairat" has also come on the record during investigation which makes the case that of farther inquiry. As such the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.