Muhammad Ishfaq Alias Ishtiaq vs The State etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Case No: Crl. Misc. No. 3115-B of 2026

Muhammad Ishfaq @ Ishtiaq Versus The State and another S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary. Mr. Muhammad Tariq Mahmood, Advocate with 19.08.2026 petitioner.

Mr. Javed Iqbal Bhayya, Assistant District Public Prosecutor alongwith Muhammad Abbas, SI.

Mr. Sohail Akhtar Alkara, Advocate for the complainant alongwith complainant in person.

Through this petition, under section 498 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.130/2026, dated 02.03.2026, in respect of an offence under section 406 PPC, registered at Police Station City Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar.

2.At the very outset, learned counsel for the complainant alongwith complainant/Muneeb Alam states that the matter between the parties has been sorted out of Court and the complainant has no objection if ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is confirmed. However, the learned ADPP has vehemently opposed this settlement and grant of bail on basis thereof stating that offence of 406 PPC is not compoundable in nature and such a statement by the complainant does not amount to compounding of offence u/s 345 Cr.P.C. Hence, he requested that this bail petition be decided on merits and dismissed in view of the facts of the case.

3.Arguments heard and record perused with the able assistance of the counsel for the parties.

Crl.Misc.No.3115-B of 2026

4.Facts of this case, summarily, are that petitioner along co-accused took complainant’s motor car for temporary use but did not return the same, rather sold it to same one else. Hence, he committed willful breach of trust, thus, this FIR.

5.The above stance of the complainant brings to the fore the significance of an amicable settlement in the matter of bail, notwithstanding the non-compoundable character of the offence. Although an offence under section 406, PPC is non- compoundable in nature, yet the factum of an amicable out- of-Court settlement between the parties has consistently been regarded as a relevant circumstance while considering the question of bail, as such settlement tends to restore harmony between the parties and put an end to their hostility.

6.Judicial notice has always been taken by the Courts where compromise/out of Court settlement was reached in ceases that were otherwise not compoundable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled as “Mukhtar Ahmad and 3 others vs. The State” (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1107), wherein paragraph No.4 reads as under:

“4. Unnatural offences as mentioned in section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code do not find mention in the table given in section 345, subsection (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, are not compoundable. Similarly, section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979, (Ordinance No.VII of 1979) does not figure in the table mentioned under section 345, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, is not compoundable. However, the fact that the parties have themselves voluntarily forgotten and forgiven a certain crime and have entered into an outside Court settlement, may be considered as a ground for the grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity. If the complainant party is no longer willing to prosecute a matter any further then it is not for this Court or the Courts subordinate to it to compel the parties to do so, as the saying goes, "you can take the horse till the water but you cannot make him drink.”

Crl.Misc.No.3115-B of 2026

Reliance is also placed on “Sohail Aslam vs. The State and another” (2017 MLD 4), wherein, despite the allegations attracting non-bailable and non-compoundable offences, the complainant and the alleged victim had voluntarily forgiven the accused and supported his plea for pre-arrest bail after an amicable settlement. This Court took into consideration their unequivocal no-objection, the apology tendered by the accused and the restoration of peaceful relations between the parties, and held that a voluntary out-of-Court settlement, though incapable of converting a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable one, could nevertheless constitute a relevant circumstance for grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity. Consequently, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was confirmed.

Similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases titled as “Muhammad Akram vs. The State” (1995 MLD 1826) and “Mst. Mussarat Elahi alias Bibi vs. The State” (1997 P.Cr.L.J. 1193).

Another case, where compromise was effected in non- compoundable case was appreciated by this Court is “Shahid vs. The State and another” (2017 YLR Note 81), where this Court was pleased to note the following:- “Needless to say, compromise even in non- compoundable offences makes a crucial circumstance and a redeeming feature which helps the warring-parties come close to each other and live peacefully onwards. Let non-compoundable nature of the offences under sections 452, 354, P.P.C. not frustrate their noble intentions.”

Crl.Misc.No.3115-B of 2026

Most importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Ghulam Ali v. The State and another” (1997 SCMR 1411) also considered the factum of compromise in a non-compoundable offence and accepted the appeal while reducing the sentence of the accused.

7.The principle that can safely be deduced from the above judicial pronouncements is that, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of an offence, an amicable settlement between the parties does not become altogether inconsequential while considering the question of bail. Though such settlement cannot amount to compounding of the offence within the contemplation of section 345, Cr.P.C., it may nevertheless be taken into consideration as a relevant circumstance in the exercise of judicial discretion, particularly where the complainant has voluntarily forgiven the accused, does not wish to pursue the matter and raises no objection to the grant or confirmation of bail.

8.In the present case, the complainant has appeared before this Court in person and categorically stated that the dispute has been amicably resolved outside the Court and that he has no objection to the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner. Therefore, while keeping the non-compoundable character of the offence intact and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court holds that the subsequent settlement between the parties and the unequivocal no- objection extended by the complainant constitute relevant circumstances which can legitimately be taken into account for confirmation of the petitioner's pre-arrest bail.

9.In view of the above-mentioned circumstances and without touching the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to

Crl.Misc.No.3115-B of 2026

the petitioner is confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Muhammad Usman Ghani Rashid Cheema) Judge

Waqas*

Approved for Reporting

Judge