2020 P Cr (PLP)
BURHAN WALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BURHAN WALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 P Cr (PLP) (BURHAN WALI and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohammad Kumail for Petitioners.
- Deputy Advocate General for the State.
- 5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the offence under section 365-B is not compoundable; therefore, the petitioners cannot effect compromise with the victim. The learned Deputy Advocate General has further argued that the petitioners are not cooperating with the Investigating Agency; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 498 & 345
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B & 34
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc, common intention
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Accused persons had abetted/facilitated the principal accused
Alleged abductee had appeared before the Chief Court and stated that she had entered into compromise and had forgiven the accused persons in the name of Allah Almighty and that she had no objection if ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons was confirmed
Although, offence under S. 365-B, P.P.C., was not compoundable, however, compromise was a ground for grant of pre-arrest bail, as complainant party was no longer willing to prosecute the matter against the accused persons
Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
Petitioners of above mentioned both the petitions namely Burhan Wali and Usman Ghani, have sought pre-arrest bail through these pre-arrest bail petitions filed under section 498, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.07/2020, dated 14-01-2020, registered under sections 365-B/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Jutial, Gilgit.
2. Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of both the above mentioned petitions, bearing Cr. M. No.16/2020 and Cr. M. No.22/2020, as both the petitions have been arisen from one and the same FIR bearing No.07/2020.
3. Succinctly, allegations against the petitioners are that on 14-01-2020, at 12:45 hours, the petitioners/accused have abetted/facilitated the principal accused namely Mashoq-ur-Rehman in abducting victim girl, namely Farhat Wali daughter of Shah Wali, from Jutial Gilgit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners/accused have entered into compromise with the alleged victim/abductee. Now, the victim has forgiven the petitioners in the name of Allah Almighty and she has no objection if ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted on 20-01-2020 and 23-01-2020 respectively are confirmed.
5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the offence under section 365-B is not compoundable; therefore, the petitioners cannot effect compromise with the victim. The learned Deputy Advocate General has further argued that the petitioners are not cooperating with the Investigating Agency; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The alleged abductee, namely Farhat Wali, had appeared before this Court on 31-01-2020 and had stated that she has entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused and she has forgiven the accused in the name of Allah Almighty. She has no objection if ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted on 20-01-20 and 23-01-20 respectively are confirmed. In this connection, the statement of above named abductee has been recorded by the Registrar of this Court on 31-01-2020 which has been placed on both the files.
8. Although, the offence under section 365-B is not compoundable, however, fact is that parties have settled the matter outside the Court and alleged victim has forgiven the petitioners/accused and the victim has no objection if ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted by this Court on 20-01-2020 and 23-01-2020 respectively are confirmed. Thus, compromise is a ground for grant of pre-arrest bail as, where complainant party is no longer willing to prosecute the matter any further against the petitioners and Court cannot compel the complainant party to do so.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, these pre-arrest bail petitions are allowed. Consequently, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted by this Court in favour of petitioners on 20-01-2020 and 23-01-2020 are hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
10. Before parting this judgment, the petitioners are strictly directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Agency in investigation of the case of petitioners/accused. File. ADN/13/GB Pre-arrest bail confirmed.