Junaid the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 75/2008 dated 21.03.2008, offence under Sections 324, 334, 342, 148, 149 of PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.03.2008 at about 07.30 a.m. he along with Abbas and Sadiq co-accused caught hold of Allah Devaya injured whereas co-accused Ishaque inflicted hatchet blow on the right, hand of Allah Devaya and his right hand was cut from his writs. Altaf co-accused inflicted hatchet blow on the left arm of Allah Devaya on which his left hand was separated from the wrist. Sabir co-accused inflicted hatched blow on the right leg of Allah Devaya and his right foot was also separated.
3. Motive behind the- occurrence was that Ishaque and others accused persons had entertained suspicion that their sister. Mst. Irshad Mai Was abducted by Allah Devaya.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.06.2008 and is behind the bar for about 1-year and 10 months without trial. It has been further submitted that the petitioner applied his bail after arrest through Crl. Misc. No, 2061-B of 2009 before this Hon'ble Court which was not pressed and a direction was issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously as early as possible but not later than three months, vide order dated 12.06.2009, and inspite of direction of this Hon'ble Court not a single witness has been recorded till yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the application submitted before the learned trial Court a Medical Board was constituted for the assessment of age of the petitioner and according to the opinion of the Medical Board the age of the accused/petitioner Junaid was between 16 to 18 years on 31.12.2009 so on the day of occurrence the age of the petitioner falls under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and according to Section 10(7)(c) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Lastly, it has been argued that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case as whole family members of the petitioner have been involved in this case.
5. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for Vie complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR; that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he facilitated his co-accused persons while catching hold the injured when the main accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of Allah Devaya. It is further submitted that delay in trial was due to the act of the petitioner as on his application a Medical Board was constituted for determination of his age. Lastly, it has been argued that the offence is heinous one so the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. It has been noticed that according to the opinion of Medical Board the age of the petitioner was between 16 to 18 years on 31.12.2009 so at the time of occurrence the age of the petitioner was between 15 to 17 years so taking into consideration the age of the petitioner he would be tried separately under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2008 and he is behind the bar petitioner A for about one year and ten months and not a single witness has been recorded by the learned trial Court till yet. The case of the petitioner is also covered under Section 10(7)(c) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 which is mandatory provision according to which he-shall be released on bail if he has been detained in jail for a continuous period exceeding four months and whose trial has not been concluded. The allegation against the petitioner is not causing any injury to the injured rather only of catching hold of the injured.
8. For what has been discussed above, by accepting this petition, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.