2022 PLP 377 (MLD)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioners/accused have sought post arrest bail, in case FIR No.36/2019, dated 27-11-2019, registered under Sections 380 and 457, P.P.C., at Police Station KIU District Gilgit.

2. It may be mentioned here that having failed to get concession of bail from the court of the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit, the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court.

3. Briefly prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that at the night of 27-11-2019, the petitioners/accused were caught red handed by police with stolen articles, i.e., electric wires, one wrench, one clipper etc. which were allegedly stolen from water pump of PDCN installed at the river near Shah Karim Hostel Konodas Gilgit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that both the petitioners are juvenile and Section 380, P.P.C., does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., whereas, Section 457, P.P.C., does not attract to the case of present petitioners as the petitioners have not stolen above mentioned items from a house; hence, the petitioners are entitled for concession of bail.

5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed this petition by contending that the petitioners are directly nominated in the FIR and the police has also arrested the petitioners red handed from the place of occurrence. The learned Deputy Advocate General has further contended that the stolen property has been recovered from the possession of petitioners; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.

6. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the available record.

7. From perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioner namely Mohammad Naeem was juvenile at the time of commission of offence, as he was 16 years old; whereas, the petitioner namely Saddam Hussain was also below the age of 18 years at the time of lodging of FIR, as evident from the Form "B" of petitioners issued by NADRA, which was filed during course of arguments and under the provisions of Section 10(7)(C) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, a child who, for commission of an offence, has been detained shall be released on bail who being accused of any offence not punishable with death or punishment for life has been detained for such an offence for a continuous period exceeding four months and whose trial for such an offence has not concluded.

8. From perusal of above reproduced provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, it appears that petitioners are entitled for concession of bail as they are behind the bars for the last about six months. Moreover, offence under Section 380, P.P.C., does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and grant of bail in such like cases is rule and refusal is an exception. As far as the offence under Section 457, P.P.C., is concerned, prima facie this section does not attract to the case of petitioners. However, the learned trial court shall determine during trial that whether the aforesaid section is attracted to the case of the petitioners or not.

9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. File. SA/44/GB Bail granted.