' Petitioner who is complainant of F.I.R. No,105 of 2003, dated 18-4-2003 registered under sections 324/337-A(i), 337-A(vi), P.P.C. At Police Station Sadar Bhakkar, District Bhakkar, seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Mushtaq son of Farzand respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhakkar, vide his order, dated 9-8-2003.
2. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R. Was that during an altercation petitioner had attacked the complainant's son Intizar Hussain with a hatchet and caused three injuries with the same on his person. The motive as given in the F.I.R. Was that in the earlier part of the fateful day the petitioner's father had set his dogs on the complainant and when the latter had gone to the house of the accused to register his protest about the said incident the occurrence in question took place.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for cancellation of bail has argued that the order of the learned Additional Sessiohs Judge, whereby the bail was allowed to the respondent is patently illegal and perverse inasmuch as his observation that the injury caused to the victim was Shajjah-i-Hashimah which did not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is on the face of it incorrect. He has referred to the report of the Radiologist according to which injury No,1 on the head of the injured was declared as Shajjah-iDamighah attracting section 337-A(vi), P.P.C. Which is punishable with 14 years imprisonment. Learned counsel added that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider this most important aspect of the case although the report of the Radiologist dated 23-4-2003 was available on the record. He further argues that another ground which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge for extending the concession of bail was the alleged minority of respondent No,
1. He submitted that without holding any inquiry about the so-called minority of respondent No,1 the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to grant bail in violation of mandatory provisions of section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. According to the learned counsel even if for the sake of argument it was to be assumed that respondent No,1 was a child within the meanings of the said Ordinance even then he was not entitled to the concession of bail as the offence charged with were sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(vi), P.P.C. And the cumulative effect of the applicability of these sections was that the petitioner could be punished if found guilty under each one of the said sections separately. At any rate even if section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was applicable without conceding the condition for the grant of bail had not been fulfilled inasmuch as four months had not elapsed and further more it had not been determined as to what was the factor responsible for occasioning the delay in the disposal of the case. Finally he argues that keeping in view the unusual manner in which respondent No,1 acted and caused serious head injury to the son of the complainant, he was not entitled to the concession of bail and that the learned trial Court while extending the said concession had acted contrary to the established principles for the grant of post-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,1 has vehemently argued that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly valid and that he extended the concession of bail after keeping all the facts and circumstances of the case in view. According to the learned counsel the respondent was a minor and he was entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He further pointed out that there was no illegality in the impugned order and the same cannot be termed as absurd or perverse.
5. Learned State Counsel has not opposed the application for cancellation of bail.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is patently clear that the report of the Radiologist was available to the time when the impugned order was passed. According to the said report the injury sustained by the victim was Shajjah-i- Damighah as stated hereinabove. According to the F.I.R. Respondent No,1 acted in a very callous and cruel manner and repeated the hatchet blows for as many as three times. Even if he was a juvenile which question is yet to be determined it was incumbent upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have seen the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the said respondent conducted himself. The learned Additional Sessions Judge omitted to appreciate the important proviso to section 10 of the Ordinance (ibid) which runs as under:-- "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 any 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."
' The learned Additional Sessions Judge also failed to consider the motive of the accused party when they offered Rs,50,000 in the first instance and Rs,60,000 in the second instance to the complainant party for effecting a compromise. After perusing the record I have come to the conclusion that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge militates against the well-established principles for the grant of bail.
8. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the order dated 9-8-2003 whereby respondent No,1 was granted post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is hereby recalled. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.