MAZHAR IQBAL and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case. The petitioners sought confirmation of their bail, arguing that the complainant had forgiven them, thereby rendering the case one of further inquiry, despite the offences being non-compoundable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had previously declined to confirm the bail on the grounds that the offence was heinous, notwithstanding the compromise between the parties. Upon review, the High Court noted the complainant's forgiveness and lack of objection to the confirmation of bail. The Court accepted the petitioners' position, supported by the State Counsel's concession. Consequently, the Court held that where a compromise has been effected between the complainant and the accused, it constitutes a ground for further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail even in cases involving non-compoundable offences. The Court accordingly confirmed the pre-arrest bail, subject to the filing of fresh bail bonds.
- Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused in a non-compoundable offence constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the complainant has forgiven the accused despite the offence being classified as heinous?
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition submits that even according to the impugned judgment the complainant has forgiven the accused, although the offences are not compoundable, this case becomes a case of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1995 PCr.LJ 1107 and 1998 SCM R 466.
2. Learned State Counsel conceded the proposition stated by the petitioners' counsel.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order, dated 23- 4-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur in which it has been mentioned that a compromise has been effected between the complainant and the accused and according to the learned Judge the offence was a heinous one so he did not confirm the bail in this regard.
4. As the complainant has forgiven the accused/petitioners and he has no. Objection if the pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed. In this view of the matter the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed. Petitioners are directed to file fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within a week.
Pre-arrest . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.