AZRAR AHMAD BUTT alias PAPPU vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the refusal of the High Court to suspend the sentence of the petitioner convicted under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during the pendency of his appeal. The core legal question concerned the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal in view of an out-of-court compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The holding establishes that where parties have effected a genuine compromise, the injured complainant has forgiven the accused, and adequate compensation has been paid, interim bail granted during the pendency of an appeal against conviction may be confirmed, particularly when the State raises no objection.
- Can interim bail be confirmed during the pendency of an appeal when the parties have reached a compromise?
- Whether the payment of adequate compensation to the injured person influences the confirmation of bail in a criminal case?
- Does the lack of objection from the State affect the confirmation of interim bail upon a compromise?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the refusal of the High Court to suspend the sentence of the petitioner in conviction under section 307/34, P.P.C., during the pendency of his appeal in the High Court.
2. ' This Court granted interim bail to the petitioner on 10-7-1989 with the following.Order:- "Submits that the learned Judge in the High Court has not given proper consideration to the fact that the parties have compromised and the injured complainant has forgiven the petitioner in the interest of amity amongst the parties.
(2) Issue notice to the State.
(3) Meanwhile the petitioner will be released on ad interim bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate/A.C.
3. Sargodha."
4. ' When the main petition came up for the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked; as to whether, any compensation has been paid to the injured person as a result of the compromise noticed in the order dated 10-7-1989. Notice was also issued to the Advocate-General.
5. Today learned counsel has produced the injured person who has stated that the parties have settled the matter out of Court and are now on very good terms with each other. He also stated that he has received adequate compensation in cash.
6. ' In the light of all these circumstances the learned counsel appearing for the State did not raise any objection to the confirmation of the interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court and accordingly a request was made for a recent order.
7. ' Therefore, in the light of what has been stated above, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The interim bail granted to the petitioner on 10-7-1989 is confirmed.