Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali s/o Shahmir Khan Lashari vs Rajindar
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali Lashari, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his initial bail plea by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the complainant's stance. The High Court, upon reviewing the record and noting that the complainant appeared in person and expressed no objection to the confirmation of bail, allowed the application. The court held that since the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the complainant consented to the relief, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where a complainant voluntarily settles the dispute with the accused and raises no objection to the grant of bail, such consent constitutes a significant factor for the court to consider in confirming pre-arrest bail, provided the overall circumstances of the case warrant such relief.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant has reached an out-of-court settlement with the accused?
- Does the lack of objection from a complainant regarding the confirmation of bail influence the court's decision in a non-compoundable offence?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J. Through this bail application, applicant Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali Lashari s/o Shahmir Khan, seeks pre-arrest bail in case, emanating from F.I.R. No.124/2020, registered at Police Station Market, for offence under Sections 489-F P.P.C. Earlier his bail plea was declined by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order dated 1 1.11.2020.
2. Facts of the case are mentioned in the F.I.R, copy whereof has been attached with the memo of application, hence no need to reproduce here.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is delay of about one month and 11 days in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant; that that the complainant and applicant have patched up their matter outside the court, learned counsel for the applicant requests for confirmation of his pre-arrest bail.
4. The complainant is present in person and has raised no objection for confirm ation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General in view of the no objection of the complainant has conceded for confirmation of bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and the police file with the assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.
7. Since the matter has been settled by the applicant outside the court and the complainant has raised no objection for confirmation of his bail. In view thereof, this application is allowed and ad-interi m pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 17.1 1.2020 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.