The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case FIR No, 12/09 dated 01.01.2009 offence under Sections 302, 324, 34 PPC registered at Police Station Tlumba District Khanewal with the allegation that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused Muhammad Sajid, caused injury with Churri on the back of the deceased Muhammad Hasnain, brother of the complainant, who succumbed to the injury.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 11 years old while the age of the deceased was 19 years and it is not possible for the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. Further contends that the case of the petitioner falls under Juvenile Justice System and he deserves the concession of bail. Further submits that provisions of Section 302 P.P.0 are not attracted in the case of the present petitioner as age of the petitioner is not disputed, therefore, his ease falls under sub-section (1) of Section 497 P.P.C. Further submits that the petitioner has not repeated the injury. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred P.Cr.L.J 2008 Page 715, M.L.D 2002 Page 1817 and R.L.J 2003 Page 140. The petitioner is behind the bar and his person is no more required to the police for further investigation.
3. Conversely, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR with specific role. The recovery of Churri weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession. The accused has been arrested on 25.01.2009. The learned counsel referred NLR 2007 P.Cr.L.J 785 in support of his contention. Further contends that age of the petitioner is to be determined at the time of trial. The challan has been sent up in the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, one thing is admitted, that the age of the petitioner is 11 years. Even according to the police file, the age mentioned in the record is 11/12 years. Thus there is no dispute as far the age of the petitioner is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments also indicated that in-fact the deceased was keeping an evil eye on the petitioner and this appears to be a reason that he picked knife from the nearby vegetable shop and has committed the said act. The case of the petitioner is covered under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. This ordinance has to be given a liberal interpretation to achieve its objects and to create such conditions and environments so that children below the age of 18 years involved in criminal litigation could be provided an opportunity to become useful and respectable members of society. Person below 18 years of age would be entitled to benefits and privileges under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail for indefinite period. Challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has been made as yet. This all is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry.
6. In this view of the matter, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty/Illaqa Magistrate.