MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ismail and Khubaib Ahmed in relation to F.I.R. No. 250/05 registered at Police Station Saddar Okara for offences under sections 420, 466, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involved the illegal possession of property and fraudulent mutation of land records in connivance with revenue officials. The petitioners' initial application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara. Before the High Court, the complainant appeared and stated that a compromise had been reached between the parties and that he had no objection to the confirmation of bail. The Court observed that while the offences charged were not technically compoundable, the existence of a compromise was a significant factor. Holding that the concession of pre-arrest bail would serve the interest of both parties and restore cordial relationships, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, relying on established precedents regarding the impact of compromises on bail proceedings even in non-compoundable offences.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted in non-compoundable offences if a compromise has been reached between the parties?
- Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 466, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J---Muhammad Ismail son of Allah Ditta and Khubaib Ahmed son of Ahmed petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,250/05 dated 12-5-2005 registered at Police Station Saddar Okara, for offences under sections 420, 466, 468, 471 P .P . C .
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Shaukat Ali Bhatti was that he had lent his Ahata to Muhammad Ismail petitioner No,1 for his use but later on he possessed the same illegally and in connivance with the Revenue officials got the same mutated in the name of his sons.
Resultantly the instant:F.1.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioners applied for their pre-arrest bail which had been turned down by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Okara vide dated 3-6-2005. Hence this petition.
4. Ch. Maajid Hussain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant who is present in person states that a compromise has been effected between the parties and that he would have no objection if the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioners is confirmed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Although the offences charged with are not compoundable yet since a compromise has been effected therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that the concession of pre-arrest bail be allowed as the same will go a long way in mending the cordial relationships between the parties which had admittedly existed before the commencement of litigation. In this connection reliance has been placed on, Mazhar Iqbal v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 923 (Lahore) and Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1853).
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners in terms of this Court order dated 16-6-2005 is hereby confirmed.
Cited by 1 case
- GULLAN alias GUL MUHAMMAD Versus State 2009 PCrLJ 260