Ansar vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ansar, who was charged under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered for dacoity. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted to the accused despite the offence being non-compoundable, given that the complainant had explicitly forgiven the accused and stated no objection to the grant of bail. The Court held that the petition should be allowed and admitted the petitioner to bail. The Court reasoned that although the offence charged is not compoundable, a compromise between the accused and the complainant/aggrieved person constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail even in non-compoundable offences. This decision reinforces the principle that the willingness of a complainant to forgive the accused, even in serious non-compoundable offences, is a significant factor to be considered by the court when exercising its discretion to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when coupled with other circumstances such as inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
- Can bail be granted in a non-compoundable offence if the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused?
- Does a delay of fifteen days in lodging an FIR constitute a valid ground for considering bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J.- Ansar petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 157/2008 dated 4.6.2008 registered with Police Station Vaneke Tarrar District Hafizabad at the instance of Rai Liaqat Ali under Section 392, PPC regarding the occurrence allegedly taking place on 2O.5.20O8.
2. According to the FIR, which was registered on the written application of Rai Liaqat Ali complainant, it is alleged that on 20.5.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. His servant was sleeping in the cattle shed when all of sudden four persons armed with fire-arm came there and forcibly took away tractor and mobile of his servant and tied him in the room of the dera and also took away trolley and other valuable articles valuing Rs. 72,000/- upon which the himself remained in search of accused and now has come to know that accused Sarfraz Ahmad, Imran, Ashraf, Ansar the present petitioner and Nadir have committed the above said dacoity. -
3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of fifteen days in lodging the FIR and fake recovery has been planted upon the petitioner. He further submits that complainant has exonerated the petitioner by making the statement in the Court of the learned Trial Court on 24.6.2008.
4. Learned D.P.G, has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged is not compoundable and the same also falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find that there is delay of fifteen days in lodging the FIR. Complainant appeared before the learned Magistrate on 24.6.2008 and made a statement that he has forgiven the present petitioner and Sarfraz accused and he has no objection if bail is granted to the petitioner. Although the offence for which the accused has been charged is not compoundable but keeping in view the compromise of the petitioner with the complainant/aggrieved person, Petitioner can be granted bail even in cases, which are not compoundable. Reliance is placed on the cases of Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah (1998 SGMR 466), Mazhar Iqbal & others v. The State (2004 P. Crl-.L.J 923).
6. For the fore-going reasons this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted tp bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Area Magistrate within fifteen days.