MIRZA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 385 of 2001, registered at Police Station Qaboola, for offences under sections 337-F(ii) and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegation against the petitioner involved causing injuries with a sharp-edged weapon (Chhuri) to the complainant's brother. The Additional Sessions Judge had previously refused bail. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a juvenile, was entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory provisions governing the release of minors. Upon reviewing the documentary evidence, specifically a birth certificate indicating the petitioner was approximately 14 years old, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell squarely within the ambit of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the age of the accused is a critical factor for bail consideration, and juvenile status provides a statutory ground for relief under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the age of an accused person constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a 14-year-old accused entitled to the benefit of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,385 of 2001 registered at Police Station Qaboola, under sections, 337-F(ii) and 337-D, P.P.C.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he caused two injuries with Chhuri on the person of Sharaf Ali brother of the complainant.
3. Bail was refused to the petitioner by Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwali on 12-1-2002.
4.. Bail petition is strongly opposed by the State counsel. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me copy of register of birth entries according to which the petitioner was born on 18-1-1988. The age of the petitioner appears to be, therefore, hardly 14 years. His case is, therefore, covered by the principle envisaged in proviso to subsection(1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty, thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.