Malik MASOOD AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating. The petitioner, Malik Masood Akhtar, was accused under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a dispute over the custody and ownership of a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the court should confirm the pre-arrest bail in light of an amicable settlement reached between the parties. The court observed that the parties had entered into a formal agreement deed to resolve their pecuniary dispute, and the complainant expressed satisfaction with the terms, including the repayment of funds and the return of the vehicle. Holding that a compromise is a redeeming feature that promotes social harmony, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that it is undesirable for the court to act as a prosecutor and prolong hostilities when parties have resolved their differences. The court further held that the complainant retains the right to seek cancellation of bail should the petitioner fail to adhere to the agreed-upon conditions.
- Can a court confirm pre-arrest bail based on an amicable compromise between the parties in a criminal case?
- Does a complainant have the right to seek cancellation of bail if the accused fails to comply with the terms of a compromise agreement?
- Should a court compel parties to continue criminal proceedings when they have reached an amicable settlement?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a' compromise has been effected between the parties and the -terms/conditions thereof have been reduced into writing in an agreement deed which has been duly signed/thumb marked by the petitioner as well as by the complainant. Further submits that the complainant is satisfied with the conditionalities of the compromise and he does not oppose the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner; the compromise being a redeeming feature may be allowed to be acted upon by both the sides and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner on the basis of compromise may be confirmed.
2. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General in view of the compromise between the parties does not oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner and adds that the compromise brings harmony and coherence in the society so he goes with it.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has also shared the submissions raised at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the complainant is satisfied with the essence of the compromise and he rightfully hopes that the conditions, entailed in the agreement deed shall be fulfilled by Malik Masood Akhtar, the petitioner in due course of time with sincerity and seriousness.
4. Zahir Shah complainant is also in attendance who too endorses the contentions of his learned counsel by submitting that he is satisfied with the arrangement of payment of the amount in question as well as with the terms, agreed upon by the petitioner, for repatriation of the vehicle LRJ-2134 to him within the scope of the text of the dozier.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Zahir Shah, complainant has alleged in the F.I.R. No.614 of 2010 dated 15-7-2010 under sections 406, 420 P.P.C. Registered at Sadiq Abad, District Rawalpindi that he had purchased a vehicle Hiace No.LRJ-2134 in consideration of Rs.7,20,000 from Fasihuddin and got the custody thereof vide an agreement deed whereby the complainant contended to have paid Rs.3,70,000 to the vendor and thereafter he made payment of Rs.1,50,000 to one Malik Naveed, as the original registration book was in his possession; the complainant employed Malik Naveed as a driver of the said vehicle but the relations between them became strained as Malik Naveed allegedly got the above said vehicle caught up by the police of Police Station New Town under section 550, Cr.P.C. With a mala fide intention; Malik Masood Akhtar (petitioner) father of Malik Naveed obtained the above said vehicle on superdari and thereafter it could not be found again by the complainant so he with the aforesaid version got the F.I.R. Lodged against the petitioner.
7. The matter pertains to a pecuniary dispute between the aforesaid parties who now have decided to resolve the matter amicably and for this purpose they have entered into an agreement as shown in agreement deed Mark-A whereby certain conditionalities and modalities have been settled between the parties for resolution of the dispute. Both the parties have shown their desire and intention to abide by the terms of the agreement and Zahir Shah, the complainant appears to be fully satisfied with the current state of affairs and Malik Masood Akhtar, the petitioner has also expressed his intention and bona fide to stick to the pledges made by him in the agreement deed.
The compromise has always been considered a redeeming feature by this court. Once, the parties have decided to resolve their disputes amicably through negotiations it shall not be desirable that the court should assume the role of a prosecutor and compel the parties to continue with their hostilities. The petitioner's pledge to abide by the aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement has entitled him to grant of relief prayed for.
8. For the foregoing reasons I accept this application and confirm the ad-interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner on 8-10-2010 provided he furnishes fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. Before parting with this order it is clarified that Zahir Shah, complainant has a right to ask for cancellation of bail allowed to the petitioner if he shows hesitation in complying with the commitments made by him vide agreement deed Mark-A which is placed on the record.