MUHAMMAD USMAN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused nominated in an F.I.R. registered for offences including Zina and theft. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds of enmity between the parties and an alleged compromise reached with the complainant. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in a non-compoundable offence of Zina based solely on a compromise between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that the concession of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases of prima facie innocence or mala fide involvement by the police or complainant. The Court emphasized that the offence of Zina is not merely a private wrong but an offence against the good conscience of society and is not compoundable under the law. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient grounds to justify the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations, and dismissed the application.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted in a case involving the offence of Zina based solely on a compromise between the parties?
- Is the offence of Zina considered a compoundable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the primary criteria for granting the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The learned counsel has filed this bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The accused is nominated in F.I.R. No.254 of 2004 dated 18-5-2004 registered under section 10/7/1979, H.O. and section 380, P.P.C. at Police. Station Saddar Narowal.
2. Briefly according to F.I.R. the petitioner entered after scaling outer wall of the house of complainant and committed Zina with her daughter namely Yasmeen. On her resistance, he also caused injuries to Yasmeen. While the petitioner was committing Zina with Yasmeen, the complainant woke up and tried to rescue her daughter whereupon she was also injured by the petitioner. While running away from the scene of occurrence, the petitioner also forcibly took away golden jewellery i.e. one locket, two golden rings of Yasmeen.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above FIR is a result of enmity between the parties. Already some criminal cases are pending between the parties. He further submits that parties have compromised. The complainant has also appeared with learned counsel for the petitioner who has supported the version of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail. According to the learned counsel for the State concession of bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession which can be granted to those who are prima facie innocent or involved malafidely by police or complainant. No element of mala fide is present in the case in hand. He further submits that the offence is not compoundable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State.
6. It is correct that the complainant has endorsed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise has been effected between the parties but the contention of the learned counsel for the State cannot be brushed aside that compromise in such-like case is not permitted under section 345, Cr.P.C. as offence of Zina is offence not against the individual only but it is also against the good conscience of the society. Probably that is the reason that it has not been included in the list of offences which are compoundable. It may be noted that F.I.R. No.254 of 2004 is dated 18-5-2004 and since then the petitioner has been on bail before arrest. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is of very serious nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged grounds which are normally considered for granting extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail except that complainant and her daughter have compromised with the petitioner. I have no idea what forced the ladies to compromise with the petitioner. Nevertheless, in view of seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant this bail application, which is accordingly dismissed.
M.B.A./M-1072/L Bail refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Dr. ANWAR ZADA vs The STATE and 2 others 2017 P Cr. L J 1510
- KHADIM ALI SHAH and anothers vs STATE and another PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 504
- Khadi Ali Shah vs The State 2015-PHC