Qamar Zaman Khan, complainant/petitioner, has filed this application under' Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of bail granted to Abdul Sattar Khan, Accused/Respondent No, 2, granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI D.I.Khan on 16/2/2009 in case FIR No, 430 dated 14/9/2008 under Sections 377/324/511 PPC of Police Station Saddar D.I.Khan.
2. According to the report of the complainant/petitioner on the eventual day at 1130 hours, he alongwith Abdul Sattar Khan, accused/respondent, was coming on foot to his house and when reached the lands situated within the limits of Garrah Balo, Abdul Sattar asked to go with him towards the Jungle for committing unnatural cornal intercourse with him. He took out pistol from his shalwar and effectively fired two shots at him with which he was hit on his hand and chest and on raising hue and cry, the accused decamped from the spot.
3. I have carefully examined record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused/respondent was directly charged by the complainant/petitioner for effectively firing two shots at him with which he was injured. The charge is duly supported by the un-natural lust of the accused/respondent. The accused/respondent has made a clean breast confession before the Judicial Magistrate about the charge and the weapon of offence was recovered at his pointation. The only ground which prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.LKhan was that the accused/respondent was minor and under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, he is to be dealt with leniently. According to the Ossification test, the age of the accused/respondent has been determined to be 20 years and even minority will not art confer a license to a person to attempt at the lives of others. The offence is heinous and of moral turpitude. Tentative assessment of the materials so far brought on record brings the case within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. dis-entitling the accused/respondent to the concession of bail, which discretion has not been properly exercised by the learned Court below.
5. Thus, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan in granting bail to the accused/respondent is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the bail granted to the accused/respondent through the impugned order is recalled. He is present in Court taken into custody and remanded to the judicial custody to face trial in due course of time.
Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.