Bilal Akhtar and 3 others vs State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 07 dated 02.01.2021 registered under Sections 379, 427, 337-L(ii), and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qadirpur Raan, District Multan. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed on the basis of a compromise between the parties when one of the charged offences is non-compoundable. The Court held that although Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-compoundable, a compromise reached between private parties can nevertheless be considered and given weight at the bail stage. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that settlements between parties in private disputes may be taken into account by courts during bail proceedings even if certain involved offences are non-compoundable.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed on the basis of a compromise when one of the offences involved is non-compoundable?
- Whether a compromise between private parties can be looked into at the bail stage for non-compoundable offences?
- Does the statement of a complainant endorsing a settlement without coercion warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C., petitioners Bilal Akhtar , Muhamma d Rizwan, Danish Ali and Maki, seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No. 07 dated 02.01.2021 registered under Secti on 379, 427, 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), PPC, at Police Station Qadirpur Raan, District Multan.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners as per crime report got lodged by Muhammad Akram, complainant is that on 29.12.2020 at 08:00 pm, they assaulted upon the complainant, caused injuries to his driver Jaffar and other servant Umar Daraz and also took out cash amount of Rs. 15100/- from the pocket of Umar Daraz. Hence, the FIR.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have patched up the matter out of the Court and the complainant has no objection if pre-arrest of the petitioners is confirmed.
5. Complainant Muhammad Akram, present in the Court has endoresed the factum of patching up the matter and submits that he has no objection if pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is confirmed.
6. Learned D.P.G. contends that offence under Section 379, PPC is non-compoun dable, therefore, the bail cannot be confirmed merely on the basis of compromise.
7. Record reveals that the offences under Sections 427, 337- L(ii), 337-A(i), PPC are compoundable as mentioned in Section 345, Cr.P.C. but offence under Section 379, PPC is not compoundable but as it was a dispute between the private parties, who have reached at some settlement outside the Court and in numerous judgments of the apex Court of the country , it has been held that even if in the non-compoundable offences, if the parties enter into compromise, the same can be looked into at bail stage. Even otherwise the statement of the complainant reflects that complainant has entered into compromise with free will and consent and without any coercion or duress.
8. Consequently , while taking into consideration the statement of the complainant before the Court, this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail already grant ed to the petitioners namely Bilal Akhtar , Muhammad Rizwan, Danish Ali and Maki, is confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.