AMIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, whereby the concession of bail earlier granted to the petitioner by the trial court on the ground of minority was withdrawn. The petitioner was booked under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing a firearm injury and had initially absconded, leading to proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. During the pendency of the petition, a Medical Board determined the petitioner's age to be 19/20 years, but in the absence of rebuttal, he was deemed a juvenile at the time of the occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the order withdrawing bail was not in conformity with the essential considerations required for the cancellation of bail, particularly keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the commencement of the trial. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, restored the bail, and directed the petitioner to furnish fresh bail bonds.
- Whether bail once granted to an accused can be withdrawn without satisfying the essential considerations required for the cancellation of bail?
- How is the age of an accused determined for the purpose of claiming juvenile status when conflicting medical reports or assessments exist?
- Does the mere fact that an accused was a fugitive from law disentitle them from seeking relief regarding bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Aamir Hussain is involved in a case under section 324, P.P.C. The petitioner has allegedly caused a fire-arm injury to Abdul Ghafoor on 29-12-2001. The accused became fugitive from law.
Proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Had been initiated against him. He was arrested on 5-4-2003 but released on bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13-6-2003 on the ground of minority. On an application moved by the complainant, a learned Additional Sessions Mudge at Kabirwala, withdrew the concession vide an order dated 10-10-2003 on the sole ground that the concession of bail under the Muvenile Mustice System Ordinance, 2000 is available to only those, who are less than 15 years of age and involved in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause. As such, the discretion had not been exercised properly by the learned trial Court. Hence this petition.
2. During the pendency of this petition, the accused was got medically examined by a Medical Board at Nishtar Hospital, Multan. According to the report of the Medical Board, the accused was found to be 19/20 years of age. In the absence of any other evidence, the accused would be deemed to be a juvenile being less than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial has commenced. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Mudge, Kabirwala, withdrawing the concession of bail does not seem to be in conformity with the considerations which are essential for the cancellation of bail. I, therefore, accept this petition and direct the petitioner to furnish fresh bail bond within a fortnight in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
3. The report of the Medical Board regarding the age of the accused along with the Skygrams shall be sent to the learned Sessions Mudge, Khanewal, for onward transmission t& the trial Court.