1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑

‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), a Ss.5, 11 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused aged 16/17 years‑‑Case not falling within proviso (1) to S.497(1); Cr.P.C. but falling within prohibitory clause‑‑Age per se no ground for release of accused on bail‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Ahmad Bokhari Khan for Petitioners. Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 16th January, 1989. The two petitioners were arrested in a case registered against them under section 5/11/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Their plea for bail was turned down by an Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ismail Khan, on the grounds that the allegations of prosecution against the petitioners apart from their confessional statements found support from ocular and medical evidence. Hence this petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail of Muhammad Saleem petitioner on the ground of his minority and involuntary nature of the confessional statements allegedly made by the petitioners.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General opposed the bail and pleaded that both the abductee and the abductor in their confessional statements have made clean breast of their involvement in the offence with which they had been charged that the medical evidence coupled with the two reports of Chemical Examiner fully corroborated the confessional statements.

4. I have perused the record carefully and have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at the bar. I find that no exception can possibly be taken to the, order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who had exercised the discretion in refusing bail on cogent reasons. The allegations of the prosecution are, prima facie, substantiated by the confessional statements made by the two petitioners, the medical evidence and two reports of the Chemical Examiner and the recoveries. I also find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for Muhammad Saleem petitioner that he being 16/17 years old was entitled to the concession of bail, on the grounds; Firstly, that the case of Muhammad Saleem petitioner does not fall within the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. because he is not shown to be under the age of sixteen years but is H 16/17 years; and secondly, that the age per se is not a good ground for releasing a person on bail whose case falls under the prohibitory clause of the subsection (1) of section 497 ibid.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to enlarge the two accused petitioners on bail, particularly when both of them have already been placed on trial. Accordingly the application for bail of the two petitioners herein s dismissed. S.A./775/P Bail refused.