FAZAL HUSSAIN Versus State
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 324 and 452 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners and their co-accused entered the complainant's house, caused hurt to multiple victims, and fired shots before fleeing. During the proceedings, the complainant and injured witnesses appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge and submitted affidavits exculpating the accused, acknowledging that a compromise had been reached between the parties. The court considered the impact of this compromise on the likelihood of conviction. The court held that, given the compromise between the parties, there was no reasonable prospect of the accused being convicted of the charged offences. Consequently, the court determined that the continued detention of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose. The bail petition was accepted, and the petitioners were ordered to be released upon furnishing bail bonds.
- Does a compromise between the parties in a criminal case justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the continued detention of an accused justified when there is no possibility of conviction due to a compromise?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
The petitioners are involved in a case under sections 324, 452 read with section 34, P.P.C. and section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered with Sadar Police, Jalalpur Pirwala.
2. According to the F.I.R. Khyzar Hayat complainant and his wife were sleeping in the cattle-shed on the night between 11/12-2-2003, while his mother Mst. Wasso Mai and sister Mst. Kalsoom Mai were sleeping in the adjoining room. It is contended that the petitioners and Sabir co-accused accompanied by an unidentified person entered the courtyard of the house of the complainant at 1-1/2 a.m. Sabir Hussain was armed with a .12 bore gun, while Muhammad Aslam alias Punnu was armed with a Sota. The third one was carrying a hatchet with him. The accused allegedly caused hurt to Khyzar Hayat, Mst. Kalsoom Mai and Mst. Wasso Mai. Another companion of the petitioner, who was sitting on the wall, opened fire with a carbine. On the arrival of the P.Ws., the perpetrators decamped.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the P.Ws. including the complainant and the injured P.Ws. appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted their affidavits in which they exculpated all the accused from the commission of the crime. He frankly conceded that these affidavits were submitted as a result of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. In view of the compromise, there is no possibility of the accused of being convicted of any offence, therefore, further detention of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any purpose. I, therefore, accept this petition and order the release of the petitioners on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./F-103/L Bail allowed.