EJAZ AHMAD TARAR and 2 others vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three petitioners facing charges under Section 395 and Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sukheki Mandi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail given a compromise reached between the parties. During the proceedings, the complainant appeared in person and stated that he would have no objection to the confirmation of bail if he were compensated for the loss of his tractor and trailer, valued at Rs. 400,000. The petitioners accepted this offer and paid the full amount to the complainant, who acknowledged receipt and expressed his intent not to pursue the case against the petitioners. Consequently, the Deputy Prosecutor-General also raised no objection to the confirmation of bail. The Court held that, in light of the compromise and the complainant's lack of objection, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The principle laid down is that where a complainant is compensated for their loss and expresses no objection, bail may be confirmed.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed if the complainant is compensated for their loss and has no objection?
- Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
{{PAGE CUTTING}} ' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Ejaz Ahmad Tarar, Muzaffar Ali Tarar and Muhammad Ashraf alias Arshad, petitioners seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,189 dated 30-6-2011 registered under section 395, P.P.C. (later on section 412, P.P.C. Was added) at Police Station Sukheki Mandi District Hafizabad.
2. Abid Mahmood, complainant present in person (duly identified by the police officer present in Court and his learned counsel) states that he will have no objection on the confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail of the petitioner if the loss suffered by him in this transaction is compensated by the petitioners. He further states that in that eventuality (compensation of loss) he will not pursue the case against all the petitioners. The complainant claims that he suffered a loss of Rs,4,00,000 (rupees four lac) as his tractor along with trailer was stolen. The, petitioners have accepted this offer and paid a cash amount of Rs,4,00,000 (rupees four lac) to the complainant who acknowledged the receipt of the same. After that the complainant and his learned counsel have jointly stated that they have no objection on the confirmation of bail before arrest already allowed to the petitioners. The complainant has further stated that he will not pursue this case to the extent of the petitioners.
3. In this situation, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General also has no objection on the confirmation of bail before arrest already allowed to the petitioners.
4. In this situation, this petition is allowed and the interim bail before arrest already allowed to the petitioners is confirmed.
Pre-arrest .