FIDA AHMAD Versus State
ALI BAIG, J.--- Through the instant bail petition the petitioner/accused namely Fida Ahmad son of Samandar Khan seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 28/2019 dated 2.5.2019 registered under sections 511/457/376, P.P.C. at Police Station City Ghakuch.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the accused/petitioner had filed bail petition in the court of the learned Session Judge Ghizer which was dismissed by the learned Session Judge Ghizer vide bail order dated 22.5.2019, hence this petition.
3. Prosecution story of the occurrence has been disclosed by the learned Session Judge Ghizer in para No. 2 of aforesaid bail order which is re-produced as under:-
4. It has been alleged that ASIP Islam received information on 02-05-2019 at 2230 hours at Police Station Gahkuch that a man has intruded in the house of one Abdul Qadir with the criminal intention and he has been caught by the persons from among the inhabitance of said house situated at street No.20 village Damas. He also told that said person may be harmed by his captors if he is not rescued. On this, said ASIP rushed to the said house where three persons were caught hold of a young man. The name of said person was Fida Ahmed son of Samandar Khan resident of Dams. During interrogation the owner of the house namely Abdul Qadir told that an unknown person repeatedly was calling at cell phone of his niece Mst. Zubaida. She informed about the said calls her uncle Abdul Qadir. When Mst. Zubaida attended the call, the caller told her that he will come to meet her at night. The three persons namely Asif, Ibrahim and Abdul Qadir were waiting for the caller in their house. At about 10:00 pm said person came to the house of Abdul Qadir and entered into house through boundary wall with the intention to commit rape with Mst. Zubaida. Said three persons caught hold of Fida Ahmed, the police has rescued the said intruder and arrested him.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that offence under sections 457 and 511, P.P.C. do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and section 376, P.P.C. does not attract to the case of the petitioner/ accused, therefore the petitioner/accused is entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused further argued that the complainant party has compounded the offence with the accused/petitioner and complainant has no objection if the accused/petitioner is released on bail and compromise is good ground in non-compoundable offence for grant of bail.
6. On the other hand the learned the Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioner is habitual offender and many other FIRs at different police stations of Ghizer have been registered against him. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that the petitioner/accused has committed an offence of moral turpitude. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that offence under section 376, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. thus the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record.
8. Admittedly, the complainant namely Abdul Qadir and his daughter Mst. Zubida have entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused as evident from their joint statement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge Ghizer on 20.5.2019 wherein they have stated that the petitioner and his family have apologized to them, they have forgiven him and they have no objection if the petitioner is released on bail or acquitted in main case.
9. Although offences / sections reflected in the FIR are not compoundable and do not fall within the ambit of section 345, Cr.P.C., however, when the complainant does not want to pursue the matter any further and complainant and his daughter have forgiven the accused/ petitioner by entering into compromise outside of the court, therefore, I am of the considered view that compromise is relevant factor/ground for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. My this view is fortified by view expressed by the Hon'ble Judges of superior courts in reported judgments 2009 PCr.LJ 542 and 2009 PCr.LJ 780.
9(sic) For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and consequently the petitioner/accused is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Sessions Judge Ghizer Gahkuch File.
SA/86/GB Bail granted.