Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 409 2025 SLD 409 = 2025 LHC 368 = 2026 YLR 680
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No.78626-B/2024.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq
20.02.2025.    Ch.    Saeed    Ahmad    Cheema,    Advocate    for    the petitioner. Rana Muhammad Imran Anjum, DPG with Khalil SI. Ms. Shama Ilyas, Child Protection Officer (Legal).

Jannat Gull.    

VERSUS

    The State etc.

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 497

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 328A

Summary of the Order

The petitioner, Jannat Gull, seeks post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 2724/2024, registered under Sections 328A PPC and 38 of the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act (PDNCA) 2004 at Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot.

Case Background

  • The FIR was filed after Muhammad Suleman (petitioner’s minor son) was taken into safe custody by the Child Protection & Welfare Bureau on 11.11.2024.
  • The child was found in possession of narcotics, allegedly given to him by his cousin, Musharaf Khan.
  • The child was discharged due to his tender age but placed under protection due to neglect by his father.

Legal Arguments

  • Petitioner’s Counsel: Argued that the offenses do not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making bail a right.
  • Prosecution & Child Protection Officer: Opposed bail, citing the seriousness of child cruelty and neglect, emphasizing that a father should not exploit his own son.

Court’s Analysis

  • Section 328 PPC applies to parents abandoning a child under 12, while Section 328A PPC covers willful harm, neglect, or exploitation of children under 18.
  • Both offenses are cognizable, but Section 328 PPC is non-bailable, whereas Section 328A PPC is bailable.
  • Section 38 of PDNCA 2004 criminalizes taking children to places where narcotics are sold or consumed. It is a non-bailable offense.
  • The court cited Islamic teachings and legal precedents emphasizing child protection.
  • The FIR was found to be justified, and the court ruled that sufficient material linked the petitioner to the offenses.

Decision

Bail was denied due to the gravity of the offenses, which fell within exceptions where bail could be refused, as upheld in previous Supreme Court rulings.

Order

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register