2004 PLP 8 (YLR)

The Honourable Sessions Judge, Dadu. Subject: AGE CERTIFICATE Reference: Letter No. 8089 dated 27‑11‑2001. I have the honour to submit that the accused/UTP Arbelo alias Arboo son of Muhabat Khoso, is produced before the undersigned on 29‑11‑2001. He is examined by the Medical Board. From his physical and Radiological examination, the members of the Medical Board are of the opinion that the accused/UTP Arbelo alias Arboo son of Mohabat Khoso, is between 17 and 18 years (seventeen and eighteen years) of his age. Marks of Identification:‑‑ (1) Mole on nose. (2) Moles on chest near the sternal area. (i) Dr. Ghulam Rasool, Chairman Lashari, Civil Surgeon, (Sd.) Dadu (ii) Dr. Muhammad Hassan Member (Sd.) Mangi, Radiologist. (iii) Dr. Ghulam Qasim, Member (Sd.) Chandio, Surgeon. (iv) Dr. Fida Hussain Member (Sd.) Shaikh, Medical Officer. Sd/‑ 29‑11‑2001 (DR. GHULAM RASOOL LASHARI) CIVIL SURGEON, DADU." The alleged incident occurred on 3‑12‑2000 and applicant/accused was examined by the Medical Board on 29‑11‑2001. In the case of Siraj Din v. Saghiruddin alias Goga and another 1970 SCMR 30, it was held that the age based on X‑ray examination f6und to be 16‑17 years is a ground on which bail can be granted in a case which entails capital punishment. In the case of Yousif v. the State reported in 1975 PCr.LJ 936 a D.B. of this Court following the dicta of apex Court in case of Sirajuddin (supra) observed that though ossification test is a better guide to age of a person yet not an accurate estimate. The margin of one year on either side is possible. The appellant was termed as a `child'. The `child' under section 2(b) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 has been defined as a person who at the time of commission of an offence not attained the age of eighteen years. Section 12 of the Ordinance lays down that no sentence of death could be awarded to a child. It is contemplated under section 10(7) and proviso (a) to section 10(7) of the Ordinance that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code and except where a juvenile Court is of the opinion that the delay in trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, or in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force, a child who for commission of an offence, has been detained shall be released on bail if, being accused of an offence punishable with death has been detained for such an offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and whose trial for such an offence has not been concluded. Apparently the applicant/accused is a `child' within the meaning of the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and the applicant/accused is in jail since last more than two years and his trial is not started, even charge has not been framed in the case. In the identical cases of Raja Amanullah and another v. The State reported in 2002 MLD 1817; Mansoor Ahmed and others v. The State reported in 2002 PCr.LJ 657; Asghar Ali v. The State reported in 2002 MLD 1566 and in unreported case of Attaullah v. The State (Cr.B.A. No.57 of 2003) the accused were granted bail. Resultantly the application for bail is allowed. The applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A‑490/K Bail granted.