FALAK SHER alias BHOLI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by a juvenile accused, Falak Sher alias Bholi, in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being a juvenile who had remained in judicial custody for over a year, was entitled to the concession of bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, despite the allegations of his involvement in a murder. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he fell within the definition of a juvenile and had been incarcerated for more than one year. The court emphasized that under clause (a) of subsection (7) of section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, a right to bail accrues to a juvenile after one year of detention, and any subsequent delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the accused. Consequently, the court granted the bail petition, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does a juvenile accused acquire a right to bail after remaining in judicial custody for more than one year?
- Can a delay in the conclusion of a trial be attributed to a juvenile accused to deny the statutory right to bail?
- Is a juvenile entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, even if charged with serious offences?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 10(7)(a), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
' Falak Sher alias Bholi son of Noor Muhammad, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,235 of 2000 registered at Police Station Thingi, District Vehari, on 6-10-2000 for offences under sections 302/148/149 and 109, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while armed with a Toka he caused injuries on the person of Allah Ditta deceased, when he fell down after receiving injuries at the hands of other co- accused. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner caused injuries on the wrist and elbow of the left arm as well as on the left knee of the deceased.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 16-10-2000 and is in judicial lock-up.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature and on the non-vital part of the body. He further argued that the petitioner was admittedly juvenile at the time of occurrence, as according to the birth certificate produced by the learned counsel for the complainant, the petitioner was born on 29-12-1982 and according to the medical examination conducted by the Medical Board to ascertain the age of the petitioner,, he was found to be between 15 to 17 years of age on 23-11-2001. It has further been argued that as the petitioner is in Jail for more than a year, he has earned a right of concession of bail as contemplated by clause (a) of subsection (7) of section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
5 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and has argued that the petitioner was armed with ' deadly weapon; that he was named in the F.I.R.; that he had motive to participate in the occurrence and that he has caused injuries on the person of the deceased. He has further argued that it was a daylight occurrence and, the matter was reported to the police without any delay; that the trial is in progress and three formal witnesses had already been recorded by the trial Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner did not deserve the concession of his release on bail.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the. State has adopted the line of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly the petitioner is juvenile within the definition of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and is behind the bars for more than a year. There is no reason to deny bail to the petitioner, who is entitled for the same in accordance with clause-(a) of subsection (7) of section 10 of the afore referred Ordinance. Especially when the role attributed to the petitioner is that he caused simple injuries on the person of the deceased after he fell down due to the injuries caused by the other-co-accused.
A right of concession of bail had accrued to the petitioner on 16-10-2001 after one year of his arrest and if any delay has been caused afterward in conclusion of the trial that cannot be attributed to the accused.
8. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.