2023 P Cr (PLP)

FAZAL SUBHAN, J.

Accused/petitioner Muhammad Ejaz Saeed seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 27/2022 dated: 27.07.2022 under section 109, P.P.C., 22(B) of Emigration Act read with sections 3, 6, PSMA, registered at Police Station, FIA/C.C, District, Abbottabad.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that Mst. Sughra Bibi (complainant) reported the matter to the local police that her son namely Faizan Ahmad met with some unknown agents who offer him a Canadian Visa. That her son was sent to Iran by the human traffickers/smugglers to further send him to Canada, but in Iran those traffickers/smugglers detained him and started demanding, for ransom of Rs. 700,000/- through telephone number 00989376048842 (Iran dialing code through call) and +0306985069280 (Greece dialing code through WhatsApp). Family deposited Rs. 100,000/- into the account of Muhammad Ijaz son of Ghulam Fareed account 0297-0010047743850018 (Allied Bank Bahawalpur). That human traffickers/smugglers started extending threats that they will kill victim if their demands are not met out. Complainant also alleged that human traffickers threatened that they would kill the victim in case the further payment is not made. She produced the deposit slips and call recording before the FIA authorities, therefore, the instant FIR was registered.

3. Earlier, the petitioner moved petition (Cr. M. No. 600-A/2022) for his release on bail, which was dismissed on merits vide order dated: 13.10.2022, now, the petitioner through this petition seeks his release on bail on the fresh ground of compromise.

4. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, complainant as well as learned A.A.G. heard and record perused.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner while submitting compromise deed stated at the bar that the complainant Mst. Sughra Bibi has effected compromise with the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/complainant admitted the factum of compromise effected between parties and stated that complainant has no objection on the release of accused/petitioner on bail.

6. Perusal of record in the light of above submissions reveals that petitioner is charged for non-compoundable offence and at the same time, it also affects the society at large. In the event of charge of such a heinous nature, no leniency could be shown to the accused involved in such crimes. Section 345, Cr.P.C, has tabulated the offences which may be compoundable. The legislature has put a bar in respect of offences which cannot be compounded by the parties, nor the Court shall allow the composition of offence not mentioned in section 345, Cr.P.C. In this respect guidance can be taken from the case titled: Muhammad Rawab v. The State, reported in 2004 SCMR, 1170, wherein, it was held that:- The pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether parties can be allowed to compound the offences which are not compoundable by virtue of the provisions as contemplated in section 345, Cr.P.C. specially in view of the specific bar as mentioned in subsection (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C. There is no denying the fact that section 365-A, P.P.C. read with section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not compoundable. The provisions as contained in section 345(7). Cr.P.C. have been couched in such a plain and simple language that there is hardly any scope for any interpretation except that a non-compoundable offence cannot be made compoundable by this Court for the simple reason that no amendment, deletion, insertion or addition could be made by this Court and it could only be done by the Legislature as this aspect of the matter falls in its exclusive domain of jurisdiction. The provisions as contained in section 345, Cr.P.C. cannot be stretched too far by including the non-compoundable offence therein under the garb of humanitarian grounds or any other extraneous consideration. The offences committed by the appellant are not of grave and alarming nature but the same are against the society as a whole and cannot be permitted to compound by any individual on any score whatsoever. It may be noted that tabulation of the offences as made under section 345, Cr.P.C. being unambiguous remove all doubts, uncertainty and must be taken as complete and comprehensive guide for compounding the offences. The judicial consensus seems to be that "The Legislature has laid down in this section the test for determining the classes of offences which concern individuals only as distinguished from those which have reference to the interests of the State and Courts of law cannot go beyond that test and substitute for it one of their own. It is against public policy to compound a non-compoundable offence, keeping in view the state of facts existing on the date of application to compound. No offences shall be compounded except where the provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C. are satisfied as to all 'matters mentioned in the section'. (Emphasis provided).

7. Though, the complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioner but in view of Chapter XXIII of Schedule II of Cr.P.C., offences against other laws (special laws) are non-compoundable and at the same time due to the current alarming situation of deceiving young generation on pretexts of sending them abroad and demanding huge amount/s from their parents by the agent mafias (human traffickers), large number of young peoples are losing their lives in the hope of better future, hence, any leniency towards such elements would amount to encourage the evil of human trafficking, hence, petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail on the fresh ground of compromise, hence, this petition is dismissed. SA/78/P Bail declined.