23/08/2026
سولہ سال سے کم عمر ملزم کی heinous offence میں ضمانت کے بارے لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا نہایت معلوماتی فیصلہ۔
لیکن افسوس کی بات ہے کہ ہیڈنوٹس میں پبلشرز نے ججمنٹ کا یہ حصہ شامل ہی نہیں کیا اسلیےصرف ہیڈنوٹس کی بجائے مکمل ججمنٹ پڑھنی ضروری ہے
True Scope of Section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018
----------------------
Section 5 of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 stipulates the procedure to be followed when a juvenile is arrested. Section 6 of the Act provides for his release on bail during the pendency of the case against him.
Section 6(3) of the Act provides for treating the "minor offences" and "major offences" as bailable.
Section 6(4) provides that where a juvenile is more than sixteen years of age and 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 the commission of a heinous offence. Even in cases involving heinous offences under section 6(5), the juvenile must be released on bail if he is under detention for a continuous period exceeding six months, his trial is not completed and he is not responsible for the delay. The said period is to be counted from the date of the juvenile's arrest.
Where the age of the juvenile is around 11, and he is accused of heinous offence, the case may not strictly fall under section 6(3) or section 6(4) of the JJSA. Section 6(3) deals with minor and major offences but does not mention the third category, i.e., heinous offences. On the other hand, section 6(4), although dealing with heinous offences, applies to situations where the juvenile is over sixteen years of age. The issue is of great significance. If the case is treated under section 6(3), he can claim bail as a matter of right even after committing a heinous offence, while in the case of section 6(4), although bail can be granted to him, the juvenile cannot claim such bail as a matter of right, as indicated by the use of the words "he may not be released on bail".
While analyzing the statute as aforesaid, the courts should first presume that the "legislature chooses its words carefully. Therefore, if a word or phrase has been added somewhere, such addition is not to be deemed redundant; conversely, if a word or phrase has been left out somewhere, such omission is not be deemed inconsequential. Secondly, Courts should presume that the legislature does not intend "absurd" consequences to flow from the application of its Act. In this context, "absurd" means contrary to sense and reason, "The presumption leads to avoidance by the interpreter of six types of undesirable consequences: (1) an unworkable or impracticable result; (ii) an inconvenient result; (ii) an anomalous or illogical result; (iv) a futile or pointless result; (v) an artificial result; and (vi) a disproportionate counter-mischief. "
Let's now go back to the JJSA. I have already pointed out that the Act classifies offences into three categories based on their severity and the stipulated punishments-though the age of the offender is also a relevant factor in certain instances. The legislature intends to be lenient with the offender in minor and major offences and harsh in heinous offences. Therefore, it treats all minor and major offences as bailable. notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or other statute, as the case may be. The legislative intent is that the bail of juveniles accused of heinous offences should be considered on merits.
If the classification of the offences is based on the age of the offender, the JJSA's scheme would be disturbed. It would reduce the offences to two categories: (a) offences, whether minor, major or heinous, committed by an offender up to sixteen years, and (b) the offences of a heinous nature committed by an offender above the said threshold of sixteen years.
In conclusion, the JJSA does not inherently exhibit leniency towards heinous offences. The legislative intent is that the bail decisions for juveniles accused of such offences should be based on the merits of each case. This approach allows the court to consider factors such as the nature of the offence, the juvenile's age, circumstances, and the potential threat to public safety before granting or denying bail. This nuanced treatment underscores a balanced approach promoting rehabilitation for less severe offences while ensuring public safety and accountability for more serious crimes.
Crl. Misc. No. 1629-B of 2024
MUHAMMAD LATIF versus The STATE
