LAW OF BAIL
1: Bails in Compoundable offences 2: Bails in Non-Compoundable offences1: Bails in Compoundable offences
1993 PCrLJ 2524. Muhammad Nawaz V/S The State (Karachi).
S.302/34 PPC. The offence now being compoundable, the ground of compromise out of court by itself sufficient to extend concession of bail to the accused. BAIL GRANTED
1995 PCrLJ 1833. Muhammad Hussain V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302 PPC. Accused murdered his daughter. Entire family members including complainant daughter had stated in court that they had forgiven accused in the name of Allah. Challan submitted and accused not required for purpose of investigation. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 1996 CrLJ 70. Muhammad Hussain V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302 PPC. Accused killed his 15 years aged daughter in a state of rage. Wife and other children appeared in High Court and gave forgiveness in the name of Almighty Allah. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 1997 CrLJ 561.
Bail granted on ground of compromise entered into by daughter of deceased with accused would not be cancelled that she could not compromise on behalf of other heirs of deceased. BAIL NOT CANCELLED
NLR 1997 CrLJ 706.
S.302/34 PPC. Accused involved in double murder case, who are prima-facie shown to be guilty within meaning of S.497(2) would not be entitled to bail on the ground that heirs of deceased in exercise of their right of waiver(afw) U/S 309, had forgiven accused. High Court in its order noting contentions of accused/petitioners. State and complainant as as to applicability of S.302/306/307/309/310/311 PPC to question of bail to accused who had been forgiven by heirs of deceased but dismissing bail petition with finding that the case of accused feel within prohibitory clause of S.497(1) BAIL REFUSED
2001 PCrLJ 1380. Mst. Rehmat Jan V/S Iqbal & another (Peshawar).
S.302/34 PPC. Cancellation of pre-arrest bail. Sessions Court had granted pre-arrest bail to the accused notwithstanding the fact that the compromise under reference arrived at between the parties during the lifetime of the deceased was only to the extent of allowing bail U/S 324 PPC and not U/S 302 PPC. Record did not show that the death of the deceased was due to some other cause except from injuries caused by firing of the accused. Impugned order granting pre-arrest bail to accused having been based on the compromise alone was patently illegal and unwarranted and the same was recalled accordingly. BBA RECALLED.
2009 PCrLJ 1087. Muhammad Asif @ Aso & another V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/324/148/149 PPC. Case was registered after one hour and 35 minutes of the occurrence. Complainant had specifically mentioned the name of both accused persons alleging that they, while armed with kalashnikoves, had fired at the deceased, created terror through firing in the bazar and murdered deceased and injured three persons. Both accused became fugitive from justice and were declared proclaimed offenders. For the first time they moved application for bail before arrest, more than four years after the murder. Proclaimed offenders would lose their normal right of audience. Bail before arrest was an extraordinary relief which could not be allowed in such type of accused merely on the basis of compromise, voluntariness of which was yet to be determined and possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by accused who appeared to be hardened criminal persons, could not be ruled out. Accused had failed to point out any mala fide for their false implication or explained the reason for their abscondence. B. B. A. DISMISSED
PLD 2007 Lahore 276. Pir Baksh @ Piran & 7 Others V/S The State
S.310-A PPC. Custom of "Kala-Kali"-- Exchange of marriage---Effect--- Badle-Sulh--- Bail in non-bailable offence. Allegation against accused/petitioners was that being members of Punchayat they, on basis of custom of Kala Kali, gave two females of complainant's family in marriage with co-accused whose sister had been allegedly abducted by complainant's brother. Bail applications of accused were rejected by trial court. Accused contended, that two females of complainant's family were not given in marriage as Badl-e-Sulh for alleged abduction of female of accused family, rather it was an exchange marriage; that it was a contract entered into by father of alleged abductee and father of females whose brother allegedly abducted the lady, that offence U/S 310-A PPC was not made out---Validity----Question whether in the light of contents of FIR ingredients of S.310 PPC were made out from its bare reading or the same required other material, could only be determined after recording of evidence. Word "Badl-e-Sulh" was though not defined in PPC yet in the context of S.310-A PPC the same was to be construed as giving or accepting something in compensation of right of Qisas and right of Qisas always arose at time of commission of offence. NO FIR had been lodged regarding commission of alleged abduction, therefore, decision made by said Punchayat in the context of FIR could be strictly construed as one in lieu of compensation for commission of offence of abduction. Such fact could tentatively be considered as one bringing case of prosecution within ambit of S.310-A PPC which could only be built up through evidence and for that matter most relevant witness was the alleged abductee who had not, so far, opted to come forward to support story of alleged abduction. Investigation of case was complete and accused could not be kept behind bars indefinitely as the same was to amount to punishing them without trial which was against law. Bail in non-bailable offence though could not be claimed as a right, yet the fact that offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497 could be considered as a weighing factor for grant of post-arrest bail. BAIL GRANTED.
1994 PCrLJ 366. Muhammad Ibrahim V/S The State (Lahore).
S.324/337-F/34 PPC. Pre-arrest bail. Compromise between the parties had been effected and a compromise deed duly signed by all concerned had been placed on record. Interim bail before arrest allowed to the accused was confirmed. BBA CONFIRMED
NLR 2002 SD 319. Khalid V/S Hakeem Khan & another (Peshawar)
S.324/34 PPC.Bail would not be cancelled by High Court when complainant had compromised with main accused. BAIL NOT CANCELLED
NLR 2002 CrLJ 566. Khalid V/S Hakeem Khan & The State (Peshawar)
S.324/34 PPC. High Court maintained bail granted by Addl.Sessions Judge and dismissed bail cancellation application on grounds that (i) accused was assigned the role of grappling only (ii) complainant had compromised with main accused (3) bail grant order was not perverse, arbitrary, fanciful or obtained through fraud, (4) accused had not misused the bail concession. BAIL NOT CANCELLED.
PLD Lahore 403Rana Zulfiqar Ali V/S The State .
S.337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/506/186/427/148/149/163/379 PPC. S.498 CrPC. Prest-arrest bail. Compromise between the parties manifestly was the outcome of the pressure and influence exerted by the accused Councillor who was being supported by the feudal lords of the area and he had even made it impossible for the senior supervisory police officer of the District despite direction of High Court to produce him in court and he at his own pleasure had opted to move High Court for pre-arrest bail. Even otherwise, offences U/S 379/506 (b) and 163 PPC were not compoundable and the local police while registering the case on the complaint of the doctor had not with mala fide intention mentioned the said sections of the PPC. None of the basic conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail was available in favour of accused, rather the whole district administration was playing in his hands. Most important criterion in this regard was the satisfaction of the Court that the case was or not fit for bail. Accused had even slapped on the face of the complainant doctor on his refusal to give the required Medical certificate. Person like the accused must be dealt with sternly in order to make the country people feel that they were living in such country where the law had edge over everything. PRE-ARREST BAIL REFUSED.
2008 MLD 480. Muhammad Ishaque @ Muhammad Ishaque Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore)
S.337-A(ii)/34 PPC. Counsel for accused as also counsel for the complainant submitted that a compromise had been effected between the parties. Complainant, who was in attendance, had been identified by an Advocate. Complainant was the only one who suffered injury. State counsel had submitted that since the offence with which accused was charged was compoundable and compromise had taken place, he would not oppose the grant of bail to accused. BBA GRANTED
2: Bails in Non-Compoundable Offences
1998 MLD 1020. The State V/S Shahzad Wali & Others (Gilgit Chief Court).
S.302/324/307/34 & 392 PPC. S.17 (OAP S.13(d) Arms Ord. All the three accused who were adult had committed dacoity on the Highway by killing one person and injuring other by firing at them with their automatic weapons. S.302/324/307 PPC no doubt were compoundable and legal heirs of deceased having compromised by receiving amount from accused party, order granting bail was valid upto that extent. Dacoity having been committed on the Highway by accused who were adult and during course of which they had committed murder, their case also fell U/S 392 PPC and S.17(4) OAP punishable with death which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497 CrPC and was not compoundable. Accused, in circumstances, were not entitled to grant of bail. BAIL CANCELLED
2002 PCrLJ 740. Loung & Others V/S The State (FSC.DB)
S.302/307/309/310/397 PPC. S.17(4) OAP (EHO). Compounding of offence. Accused were convicted and sentenced by trial court and they filed appeal against judgment of trial court. Compromise was arrived at between accused and heirs of deceased during pendency of appeal. Four of the legal heirs of deceased who were minors had entered into compromise through their mother and authenticity of compromise had also been verified by widow of deceased and also by trial court to which case was sent to verify genuineness of compromise deed. State Counsel did not dispute or challenge authenticity of compromise deed, but had submitted that since four of legal heirs of deceased were minors, amount of Diyat falling in their share proportionately be deposited in Bank till the time the minors attained puberty and became adults legally and accused side agreed to do so. Compromise was accepted accordingly and accused were ordered to be released on bail. BAIL GRANTED
2009 PCrLJ 260.. Gullan @ Gul Muhammad V/S The State (Karachi)
S.365 & 341 PPC. S.17(3) OAP (EHO) 1979. Matter between accused and complainant had already been resolved through a compromise. Counsel for complainant also confirmed that the matter had already been resolved between the complainant and accused by a compromise on the intervention of the Ned Mards of the locality and that he had no objection against the grant of bail to accused. Counsel for complainant also filed affidavit or the complainant in that respect. BAIL GRANTED
PLJ 2008 Cr.C.(Lahore) 562. Nadeem V/S The State
S.367-A PPC. Petitioner/accused was duly named in the FIR. Prima facie accused was guilty of a heinous, detestable and abominable crime. Accused had buggered a boy of 10/11 years. Brother of victim was an eye-witness of the occurrence. Statement of victim was duly supported by his younger brother. Younger brother of the victim was seen the occurrence by peeping through the door of the room wherein his elder brother was sodomized. Medico legal certificate as well as report of chemical examiner, prima facie, support the prosecution case. Offence committed by the accused being not compoundable. Held: Offence committed by accused fall within the prohibitory clause. BAIL REFUSED.
2009 PCrLJ 780. Syed Azmat Hussain Shah V/S The State (Islamabad)
S.377/34 PPC. Complainant had himself appeared before the court and affirmed the contents of affidavit sworn by him regarding compromise with accused. Case though was not compoundable and did not fall within the ambit of S.345 CrPC, however when the complainant did not want to pursue the matter further and had forgiven accused by entering into compromise outside the court, his statement/affidavit could be considered as one of the relevant factors for grant of relief to accused at bail stage. BAIL GRANTED.
NLR 2008 CrLJ 644. Hazrat V/S The State (Peshawar)
S.381-A/411/148/149 PPC. Compromise of an offence which is not compoundable would not be a ground for bail U/S 497. (Note: Bail granted on the ground that alleged offences does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 CrPC. BAIL GRANTED
2009 PCrLJ 542. Mahboob Sani V/S The State (Peshawar)
S.381-A & 411 PPC. Offence, though was not compoundable and accused was not entitled to bail on the ground of compromise, but on the principle of “forget and forgive” the compromise could be taken as a mitigating circumstance while considering the request of post-arrest bail of an accused. Record had revealed that accused could at the most be booked for an offence U/S 411 PPC which did not fall within the restrictive clause of S.497. BAIL GRANTED
2006 MLD 437 Muhammad Ismail V/S The State (Lahore)
S.420/466/468/471 PPC. Offences with which accused was charged though were not compoundable, but since a compromise had been effected, it would be in the interest of both the parties that concession of pre-arrest bail be allowed as same would go a long way in mending cordial relationship between the parties which had existed before commencement of litigation. BBA CONFIRMED.
2001 PCrLJ 1493. Jamshed @ Javed V/S The State & another (Peshawar)
S.452/457 PPC. Grant of bail on basis of compromise in a non-compoundable offence. Accused was caught red-handed while stealing and was detained by the complainant in the house and thereafter was produced before the police. Prosecution story was supported by the other inmates of the house. Offence against the accused U/S 457 PPC was punishable with sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment. Accused had sought bail on the ground that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties. Where compromise between the had been reached in non-compoundable offence during the pendency of the appeal, the courts had taken the compromise as a ground for reduction in sentence only. Compromise in bail matter had by and large, been considered as one of the factors, alongside the facts of the case, for determining whether bail be granted, but same could not be made its sole basis. Compromise in non-compoundable offence, should not entitle the accused to bail, but could be considered as one of the factors for its grant. Even otherwise the effect of compromise in non-compoundable offences, could not be taken at par, even at bail stage, with that of compoundable offences, which ultimately would result in the acquittal of the accused. Since the merits of the case against the accused did not justify the grant of bail to him, compromise between the parties could not be taken to entitle the accused to bail. BAIL REFUSED
2005 MLD 893.Rukhsana Naz V/S Arshad @ Achhi & another (Lahore)
S.16 Zina Ord. S.497(5) CrPC. Besides making statements before the Sessions Court, complainant and the victim both had also sworn affidavits confirming the compromise effected between them and the accused.was not found to be correct. BAIL NOT CANCELLED.
2003MLD 1665. Muhammad Rind & 3 Others (Karachi)
S.497 CrPC. S.17(3) OAP (EHO). S.147/148/149 PPC. Accused had stated that elders of the parties had intervened and were making efforts to settle differences between accused and complainant party. Accused also assured that complainant party had no objection if bail was granted to accused as it would facilitate resolution of long drawn dispute between the parties. Complainant and two injured persons present in court had made a statement under their signature duly supported by affidavit in which they had confirmed the statement of accused and had stated that possibility existed for resolving the controversy. State counsel also stated that bail be granted to accused. BAIL GRANTED
