ZAIB ALAM vs The STATE
This bail petition was filed by the petitioner seeking release in connection with FIR No. 03/2014, involving charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Mehmood Alam and Rehana. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner murdered the victims in his home, with the motive being honour killing. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question addressed was whether a compromise could be effected when the petitioner himself is a legal heir of one of the deceased victims. The Court noted that the trial was nearing completion and that the petitioner failed to provide any supporting case law to substantiate the validity of such a compromise in these specific circumstances. Consequently, the Court refused to grant bail, holding that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.
- Can an accused in a murder case be granted bail solely on the basis of a compromise with legal heirs when the accused is also a legal heir of one of the victims?
- Is a compromise between an accused and legal heirs valid in a case of honour killing?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a bail petition for grant of bail facility to the petitioner in connection with occurrence reported through FIR No, 03/2014 of Police Station City Chilas.
2. Petitioner, who is involved for the offence of double murder of Mr. Mehmood Alam and Miss Rehana, booked for offences of section 302 etc., P.P.C., through FIR No, 03/2014 dated 15-01-2014 of Police Station Chilas, seeks his release on bail through this petition.
3. The prosecution story of the occurrence is that the police of PS Chilas have chalked FIR of occurrence, on the written application of FIR lodger, who is father of the deceased Mehmood Alam.
In his application, complainant has given the circumstances of occurrence, alleging that, petitioner called the two deceased in his home and murdered both of them by opening fires. The motive for the occurrence alleged in the FIR is that, Mr. Mehmood Alam had illicit relations with Miss Rehana.
Complainant has names of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence in the FIR.
4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned DAG. It is not disputed that, till now the trial of the case has almost completed and the learned trial Court is about to pass his orders on the case. It is also not disputed that the occurrence is of honour killing. The petition in hand is mainly on the ground of compromise of the legal heirs of deceased with the petitioner. The question debated before me is that, whether legal heirs of the deceased can effect compromise with the petitioner as the petitioner is also one of the legal heirs of one of the deceased. In this connection, I have afforded full chance to the counsel for petitioner for presenting any relevant case law. But the learned counsel failed to present any case law on this aspect of the case.
5. I, therefore, refuse to grant bail facility to the petitioner and the petition in hand merits dismissal.
Petition dismissed. File.
Cited by 1 case
- Hidayat Ullah vs The State etc. 2023 PHC 410