Abdul Hadi Vs The State

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, ABBOTTABAD

BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Cr.Misc. (BA) No. 683-A/2026

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing...................15.10.2026.................................

Petitioner (Abdul Hadi) By Mr. Naseer Ahmed Khan Tanoli, Advocate.

Respondents. (State) By Mr. Sajid Ur Rehman, learned Additional Advocate General, while (complainant/respondent No. 2) by Mr. Hamid Faraz Abbasi, Advocate.

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- Through the instant petition, accused/petitioner (Abdul Hadi s/o Muhammad Ayaz Khan) seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.

746 dated 26.09.2026, registered under Sections 376 PPC read with Section 53 of the Child Protection Act, at Police Station Nawanshehr, District Abbottabad. Vide order dated 02.10.2026 he has been declined the prayed relief by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII/Judge Child Protection Court, Abbottabad, hence, the instant petition.

2.Allegation against the accused/petitioner, is that he allegedly subjected the minor victim to sexual assault, for which the complainant reported the matter to the local police, resulting in registration of the FIR against him.

3.I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned AAG and gone through the record.

4.A tentative assessment of the record reveals that there is delay in reporting the matter to the local police, which requires explanation.

Furthermore, the medico-legal report does not furnish clear corroboration of the prosecution version regarding the alleged sexual assault.

Although absence of medical corroboration is not by itself sufficient to disbelieve the allegation, these circumstances, when considered together, make the petitioner's case one of further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.

5.More importantly, the petitioner is a juvenile, aged approximately twelve years at the time of the alleged occurrence. In this regard, Section 83 PPC provides as under:

“Act of a child above ten and under fourteen of immature understanding.— Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above ten years of age and under fourteen, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion”.

The applicability of the aforesaid provision depends upon the maturity of understanding of the child, which is a matter to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence.

6.Furthermore, Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, provides special protection to juveniles in the matter of bail.

Subsections (3) and (4) thereof read as under:

“(3) Where a juvenile is arrested or detained for commission of a minor or a major offence for the purposes of this Act, he shall be treated as if he was accused of commission of a bailable offence.

(4)Where a juvenile of more than sixteen years of age is arrested or detained for a heinous offence, he may not be released on bail if the Juvenile Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such juvenile is involved in commission of a heinous offence.”

A plain reading of the aforesaid

provisions reveals that the legislature has extended special protection to juveniles in matters of bail, whereas the restriction contemplated under subsection (4) applies only to juveniles exceeding sixteen years of age. In the present case, the petitioner, being approximately twelve years of

age, does not fall within the said restrictive category. Therefore, notwithstanding the gravity of the accusation, his case deserves consideration in the light of the beneficial provisions of the Act, particularly when the material available on record calls for further inquiry into his alleged involvement.

7.It is also significant that the investigation has been completed and the petitioner is no longer required for further investigation. His continued detention at such a tender age would serve no useful purpose, particularly when no material has been brought on record suggesting that his release into the custody of his guardian would expose him to danger or bring him into association with criminals. The learned Court below, while declining bail, appears to have placed undue emphasis on the gravity of the offence without adequately considering the petitioner's age and the statutory protection available to him.

8.In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the accused-petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of rupees two lac (Rs.2,00,000/-) with two sureties each in the like amount to the

satisfaction of learned Trial Court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.

Announced:

JUDGE

Shahid/*