MANZOOR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD UMAR FAROOQ S — 2024 PLD 702 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MANZOOR AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD UMAR FAROOQ S. 497(5)---Juvenile Justice System act (XXII of 2018), S. 6(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(vi) & 34--- Munaqqilah, common intention---Release of juvenile on bail---Petition for cancellation of bail---Section 6(3) of Juvenile Justice System act, 2018---Inter-pretation---accused were charged for assaulting the petitioner, which resulted in a fracture to his left arm---Respondent No.1 was admittedly a juvenile and was accused of an offence under Ss. 337-F(vi)/34, P.P.C---Said offence was classified as a "major offence" under the Juvenile Justice System act, 2018, punishable with Daman and imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years as Ta'zir---Prison sentence was in the Court's discretion---Offence was non-bailable according to Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---as adumbrated, S. 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System act, 2018, mandated that it was to be treated as bailable---Petitioner's contention was that the benefit of S. 6(3) of the act, 2018, could not be extended to the juvenile if he applied for pre-arrest bail---allegedly, the words "arrested or detained" in S. 6(3) of the act, 2018. denoted that a juvenile must be in custody before S. 6(3) of the act, 2018, could be applied to him---To put it differently, the benefit of said provision can only be granted to the juvenile when he seeks post-arrest bail---Juvenile Justice System act, 2018, marks a paradigm shift in the treatment of juvenile offenders within the criminal justice system---Said act modified and amended the law relating to juveniles by focusing on the disposal of their cases through diversion and facilitating their rehabilitation---Recognizing their unique vulnerabilities and the necessity for support, it provided that all offences except heinous ones are to be treated as bailable---However, the practical application of S. 6(3) of the act, 2018, has raised a critical issue---It is absurd to say that offence would be considered bailable when a juvenile applied for post-arrest bail, but otherwise if he approached the Court for anticipatory bail---In other words, the bail process should not be contingent upon whether a juvenile is seeking post-arrest bail or anticipatory bail because it would introduce an arbitrary distinction that ran counter to the overarching objectives of the act, 2018---Juvenile's eligibility for bail should be determined based on the nature of the offence and the specific circumstances of the case rather than the procedural mechanism through which bail is sought---Section 6(3) of the act, 2018, aligns closely with the principles of the best interests of the child, rehabilitation and fairness---Furthermore, it effectively implements the principle that a child's arrest, detention, or imprisonment should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time---application seeking cancellation of bail had no merits and was, therefore, dismissed.

MANZOOR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD UMAR FAROOQ S — 2024 PLD 702 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD