P L D 2014 Lahore 503 (PLP)

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.

Petitioner got a case registered against the respondent as to murder of his son Muhammad Siddique vide F.I.R. No.159/10 under section 302, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Sammundari District Faisalabad on 31-3-2010 over the motive of pedophilia for which the case was registered against the respondent Ghulam Murtaza vide F.I.R. No.678 of 2009 at Police Station Saddar Sammundari in which the respondent was wanted by the police. The respondent was granted bail on the ground of temporization by the learned trial court on 28-5-2012 after declaring the respondent as juvenile.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent at the time of occurrence was about 19 and before the instant murder he committed the carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the deceased Muhammad Siddique and in the said case he was yet to be arrested but he instead of surrendering him to the justice, committed the murder of the deceased, victim of the said case and in this way, he has displayed desperation; even being a juvenescent on the ground of delay in disposal of case he could not have been granted bail because of his actions because the special law has put certain clogs in the form of last proviso to section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Learned counsel has further placed on record Photostat copies of the two F.I.R's bearing No.49 dated 11-2-2013 registered under section 13(XX) of Arms Ordinance 1965 for the recovery of alleged revolver .32 bore at Police Station Saddar Sammundari District Faisalabad and photostat copy of another F.I.R. No.76 dated 15-3-2013 registered under sections 440, 379, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sammundari District Faisalabad and in both the F.I.R's respondent was nominated and in this way, learned counsel has tried to establish that not only the respondent has blatantly misused the concession of bail and his .case also comes within the mischief of desperate criminal. Lastly it has been submitted that that in the charge sheet he has been mentioned as 19 and even after his medical examination he was not declared less than 14 years, so being the puber, sane and rational has acted criminally, therefore, the impugned order of granting bail outwardly as being unplatable has caused grave miscarriage of justice and notoriety and has thus prayed for acceptance of instant application.

3. Learned D.P.G has supplemented the arguments of the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions in a backlash manner and submitted that the respondent being a child within the meaning of section 2 clause "b" and section F of the Juvenile Justice Ordinance, 2000 was rightly extended the concession of bail as the prosecution could not conclude its case within the stipulated period; mere involvement of the respondent in some cases without awaiting their final result he cannot be termed as hardened or desperate because he being the blue eyed child of law cannot be prematurely opinionated as guilty. The trial has commenced, therefore, at this stage it would not be apropos to withdraw the relief earned by the respondent in the form of post arrest bail.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The F.I.R. has been closely gone through. The motive for the murder of the deceased has been mentioned that the respondent committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with Muhammad Siddique deceased and the respondent was required by police in the said case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.678 of 2009 under section 377, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Sammundari. He instead of surrendering him to the justice opted to commit the murder of the victim of the said case i.e the deceased of this case Muhammad Siddique, then after the release on bail, he has also been found involved in two cases as mentioned herein above. The incident happened in the case before the murder and after the murder continuumly are reckoned and the court is of the humble view that the respondent has not only misused the concession of bail but even otherwise, he was not entitled for the grant of bail even on the ground of delay in final disposal of case. Section 10 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and its last proviso is reproduced as follows for the better comprehension of the jural point: "Provided that where a child of the age of fifteen years or above is arrested, the Court may refuse to grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child is involved in an offence which in its opinion is serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal, sensational in character or shocking to public morality or he is a previous convict of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life." In the present epoch it has been noticed that a child, male/female gains sense of understanding the things early and speedy as compare to the old ages on account of modernization in devices in technologies in all walks of life. Guidance has also been sought by another legal precedent titled Tauseef alias Captain v. The State and another (2009 PCr.LJ 978). In all, the resume of the discussion is that petitioner has succeeded in making out his case for the acceptance of instant petition, therefore, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-8-2012 whereby after arrest bail was granted to the respondent is hereby recalled and the bail granted stands cancelled. He shall be taken into custody and be dealt with in accordance with law. MWA/M-195/L Bail recalled.