GULFIROSH ABBASI and anothers vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' The complainant Syed Abid Raza son of Muhammad Khizar has recorded F.I.R. No,113 of 2002 at Quaidabad Police Station, Karachi on 17-4-2002 at 00-30 hours alleging that he lives alongwith his family in a bungalow in Social Security Hospital, Landhi, Karachi. On 16-4-2002 he was sleeping in his house on the ground floor while his wife and daughter were in the first floor room of the house.

2. At about 11-00 p.m. He heard his wife shouting. He reached her room when his wife informed him that four young boys had come with arms and have taken away Nokia Mobile Phone Set and other things. The complainant has further alleged that he informed about the incident to the security guards and he alongwith security guards Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Qasim started looking for culprit and they found two suspicious boys near the Social Security Masjid and apprehended them. The two boys gave their names that of the applicants. On search, a pistol was recovered from the Shalwar of the applicant No,1 while Nokia Mobile Phone Set was recovered from the applicant No,2. On further inquiry, the applicants disclosed the names of two other companions that of Abrar and Azeem and informed that they have been taken away the things with them. The complainant alongwith the security guards took the applicants to the police station where the F.I.R.

3. Was lodged and the applicants were handed over to the police. The challan has been filed in the trial Court under section 392/34, P.P.C. The applicants have approached the trial Court for grant of bail who vide his order dated 21-8-2002 has rejected the same. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicants are minors as they both are below 18 years of the age. He has stated that the applicant No,1 is of 16 years and the applicant No,2 is of 17 years and 4 months. To support his contention that the applicants are minors he has filed copies of birth certificates of the applicants as well as copies of their school identity cards which are at pages Nos.37 to 45 of this bail application. He has also contended that so far the matter of age is concerned the police has not disputed the same. He states that section 10(7)(c) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides that if the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the accused have been detained for an offence for a continuous period exceeding four months and whose trial of such an offence has not concluded, such accused shall be released on bail. He has further contended that eye-witnesses of the occurrence are not the wife and daughter of the complainant who are not named in the F.I.R. Nor they cited as eye- witnesses in the challan. He has also contended that no statement whatsoever of the wife and daughter of the complainant has so far been recorded. He has stated that there is no material on the record whereby the applicants may be connected with the offence. As regards recovery, he states that such recovery is not sufficient to implicate the applicants in the offence. He has relied upon the case of Mansoor Ahmed v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 657, Afsar Zameen v. The State PLD 2002 Kar. 18 in support of his contentions. Learned State Counsel has contended that on the basis of the record, he considers the case to be of further inquiry and concedes to the granting of bail.

4. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also examined the record and also the case-law cited by the applicants' counsel. There appears to be no cavil to the fact that the applicants are less than 18 years of age and that they are in continuous custody since 17-4-2002 which is of more than four months period and that the trial of the case has not concluded as yet.

5. The contents of the F.I.R. Do not disclose that the offence alleged against the applicants is serious, heinous or gruesome. I, therefore, find that the case is of further inquiry A and that of a statutory concession as provided under section 10(7)(c) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. In the circumstances, the bail application herein is allowed. Both the applicants will be released on bail on furnishing of one solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount each to the satisfaction of- the trial Court.

6. ' This bail application accordingly stands disposed of.