AZIZ ULLAH vs The STATE
The petitioner, Aziz Ullah, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 966 dated 16.12.2014 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted on the ground of compromise in a case involving honor killing (Karo-Kari), where Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is claimed to be compoundable. The Peshawar High Court held that although Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is generally compoundable, under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cases of honor killing (Karo-Kari) are not compoundable. Furthermore, the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner was apprehended red-handed with the crime weapon, and the trial is at an advanced stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
- Whether an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable in cases of honor killing (Karo-Kari) under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of a compromise when the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the trial is at its concluding stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.---Through instant petition, Aziz Ullah, the petitioner, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.966 dated 16.12.2014, registered under sections 302, P.P.C. 13, A.O., P.S. Mingora, District Swat.
2. As per prosecution case, petitioner after committing murder of his sister Seema Gul and one Lal Bahadar by firing at them with pistol, was over powered by the local police along with crime pistol and a case vide FIR mentioned above was registered against him.
3. It is pertinent to mention that the prayer of petitioner for his release on bail has been rejected on merit by the learned lower Court and during pendency of his bail petition on merit before this Court, it was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner moved the lower Court on fresh ground of compromise effected between the parties, which was refused vide order dated 20.10.2015, hence the instant petition for release of petitioner on the basis of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly stressed the release of petitioner on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. As per record it is a case of honor killing which has been lodged on the report of petitioner who was arrested red handed on the spot along with crime pistol after committing murder of his 'sister along with one Lal Bahadar on the pretext of Karo-Kari (Honor killing) as his sister had run away with the said Lal Bahadar, which is duly supported by the recoveries of blood and empties from the places of both the deceased as well as their Post Mortem Reports. Though in the lower Court, the legal heirs of both the deceased had produced compromise with the petitioner and recorded their statements in respect of compromise but the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. Section 302, P.P.C. Is compoundable but according to section 345, Cr.P.C., in cases of 'Karo Kari' (Honor Killing), section 302, P.P.C. Has not been declared as compoundable. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Besides, trial against the petitioner has been commenced and most of prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial could be concluded in the near future, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
In view of above, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
The above observations of this Court should be considered tentative in nature and in no way prejudice the case of either party I during trial.
Cited by 1 case
- Hidayat Ullah vs The State etc. 2023 PHC 410