ABDUL MALIK vs ADAM KHAN and another
This application was filed by the complainant, Abdul Malik, seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondent, Adam Khan, by the Sessions Judge, Lakki, in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused-respondent shot the complainant with a pistol, causing a grievous injury to his neck. The Sessions Judge had granted bail primarily on the ground of the accused's minority, based on a school certificate indicating he was under 18 years of age. The High Court examined the medical evidence, which confirmed that the complainant's left arm had become paralyzed as a result of the gunshot wound. The High Court held that under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail on the ground of young age cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially where the accused is directly charged with a specific role and the victim has suffered a permanent disability. Consequently, the High Court accepted the application and recalled the bail.
- Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of young age?
- Whether the severity and permanent nature of the injury inflicted by an accused can override the consideration of minority for the purposes of granting bail?
- Is a court justified in granting bail to a minor accused who is directly charged with firing a weapon and causing a paralyzing injury to the victim?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Accused-respondent Adam Khan has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakki, vide his order dated 17-8-2002, in case F.I.R. No,84 dated 25-4-2002 of Police Station, Ghanznikhel, under sections 324/34, P.P.C. And now through the present application, complainant Abdul Malik seeks cancellation of the same from this Court.
2. According to the F.I.R., on the day of occurrence, complainant Abdul Malik alongwith his uncle Mir Aslam was present in his fields situated in front of his house. It was 'Digarvela' when in the meantime, the accused-petitioner, armed with a :30 bore pistol, and his co-accused Rahim came there. After some conversation between the accused-petitioner and his co-accused, the former fired at the complainant with his pistol, with which, the complainant received injury on left side of his neck. After the occurrence, the accused-petitioner and his co-accused decamped from the spot.
3. I have heard Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Marwat, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate for the State and Mr. Nasrullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused-respondent and have also perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused-respondent mainly on the ground of minor age, on the basis of school certificate, according to which the date of birth being 13-2-1998, he was below the age of 18 years on the day of occurrence but perusal of medical evidence on record shows that the injury on the person of the petitioner was grievous in nature, as a result of which, his left arm has become paralysed and mere age in such cases in no ground for grant of bail. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on (i) 1978 SCM R 235 and (ii) 1992 PCr.LJ 423.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight. In the case reported in 1978 SCM R 235, their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, "under the proviso to I subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail on the basis of young age be claimed as a matter of right". Similar observations were made by his Lordship of a Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 423.
6. By going through the record, it transpires that the accused-respondent is directly charged in the promptly lodged, F.I.R. For effective firing at the petitioner causing grievous injury to him at his neck.
The petitioner is present in Court and as a result of the grievous injury; his left arm has almost become paralysed. The petitioner's version is supported by the medical evidence on record and in view of the foregoing authorities, bail on account of mere age cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as such, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified to allow the accused-respondent the concession of bail.
7. Accordingly, this application is accepted and the to the accused-respondent by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby recalled. The accused-respondent is present in Court. He is taken into custody and sent to, the jail to face his trial.
Bail cancelled.