Peshawar High Court
Muhammad Ejaz Saeed Vs The State
Outcome The petition was dismissed.
- Case
- Cr.M No. 60-A of 2023
- Type
- Criminal
- Length
- 7 pages
The petition was for bail in a case involving alleged human trafficking and smuggling of a migrant to Canada. The court held that, despite a compromise between the complainant and the petitioner, the offence was non-compoundable and the petitioner was not entitled to bail on that fresh ground.
The full analysis is free with a Lawzo account
- The background of the case
- 2 issues before the court
- 3 holdings, each with the court's own words and page
- 5 laws applied
Takes a few seconds with Google. You'll come straight back here.
Written by AI from the judgment's text and may miss nuance. Rely on the full judgment below and the court's official copy. Court's own note: ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- --- S.497--- The Emigration Ordinance, 1979--- Section 22--- The Prevention of smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018--- Section 3/6--- Section 345--- Compromise--- Non-Compoundable offence--- Complainant whose son was deceived and lured to be send to Canada appeared and submitted compromise deed stating that she has effected compromise and has no objection on release on bail of petitioner--- Section 345 has tabulated offence which may be compoundable---legislature has put a bar in respect of offences which cannot be compoundable by the parties, nor Court shall allow the composition of offences not mentioned in section 345 Cr.P.C--- due to current alarming situation of deceiving young generation on the pretexts of sending them abroad and demanding huge amounts from their parents by the agent mafias (human Traffickers) large number of young people are losing their lives in the hope of better future--- any leniency towards such elements would amount to encourage the evil of human trafficking—petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail on fresh ground of compromise hence, petition is dismissed.
Full judgment
Official copyI'L:St t. t u.t R I I I (; I I ('0 I' R7' ..1 ll R01-'t .t ll.,t l)
BLN'CII
.l u 1) t(' h I- I ) li l'l ll7' M |.NT J I]I)GMI'N7' SII IiIiT e Cr. ill lloil) No. 60-A/202.1.
D ute o.f' h ear i n g 0 3. 0 -1. 2 0 2 -1.
Petitioner/s ( lvluhommucl lllu:1 h.1' Strrtlur lam i r I q ba l,,4dt,oca I e.
Respondent/s ('l'ha Statc) b.y lulalik .\'o nttt n. ltltlitionul .4tlr.trncv (ienarul und compluinunl b-1: Mr. llilul l,ttntutt Kivtr n i. ldtrtc'ute.
l,'LZl.l, SUlll{AN, ,1. Accuscd/ pctitiorrcr iv'/uhuntnacl lifu: Straec/ sccl(s his rclcasc on bail in casc lrll{ No. 21 12022 datcd 27.01 .2022 undcr scctions 109 l'I']C, 22 (l)) o1' Lmigralion Act l'cad r'vi1h scction i,(r I'}SN4A. rcgistcrccl at l)olicc Station, lt I A /C. C, I)istrict,,4 b bott a bad.
7.lfacts ol'thc casc in bric[' arc thal Mst. Sughra l\ibi (c'ontplcrinunt) rcportcd thc nrattcr to tlrc local policc that hcr sotr rramcly I:aizan Ahrnad Ittct w ith sotllc unknown agcnls who ofl-cr hirn a Candiarl visa. 'l'hat hcr son was scnt to Iran bv thc human tra ['1 rc kcrs/srl ugglcrs 1o lurthcr
scnd him to Canada. but in lran thosc tralllckcrs/smugglcrs dctair.rcd hir.t.r and starlcd dcrnanding lilr ransom ol' Ils.
700,000/- through tclcphonc nurnbcr 0091t9376048842 (lran dialing codc rllrough call) and r 03069tt50692tt0 ((ircccc dialing codc through wl.rats-r"rp).
lrarnily dcpositcd Its. 100,000/- inlo thc accourlt of Muharrrn.rad \1at. son of' (ihr-rlam lrarccd accoullt 0297 - 001004774385001 (Allicd Ilanl< tl llahawalpur). 'l'hal httt.natr
tral'lrckcrs/smugglcrs startcd cxtcrrdillg thrcats that thcy will kill victirn i[' thcir a dcrnarrds arc not ltlct oLIt. (iomplainant also allcgcd that hutnatr tral-[lckcrs tl.rrcatcncd thal thcy would kill thc victirn in casc thc lurlhcr paymcnt is not llladc.
Shc prodr.rccd thc dcposit slips arrd call rccording bclirrc tl.rc IitA authoritics, thcrclorc, thc ir.rstarlt I:lll was rcgistcrcd' 3 . l.,arlicr, thc Pctitioncr tnovcd pctitiorr (Cr. A4 No. 600-,'l/2022) lbr his rclcasc on bail, wl.rich was dismissccl on
mcrits vidc ordcr datcd: 13.10.2022, nou'.
thc pctitioncr tlrrough this pclition sccks his rclcasc on bail on thc lrcsh grouncl o[' cotrprol]l lsc.
4.Argurrcnts ol' lcarncd counscl ltlr pclitioncr, conrplainarrl as wcll as lcarncd AA(i hcard aud rccord pcruscd.
5.[.carncd cottnscl lbr pctitiollcr whilc submitting compromisc dccd statcd at thc bar that thc complainant Mst. Sughra llibi has cf'f'cc1cd comprorllisc with thc pctitioncr. Lcarncd counscl appcarin-u ott bchal l- o I'
rcspondcnt/cornplainant admittcd 1hc lactunr ol' cornpronrisc cll-cctcd bctwccn partics and statcd that complainant has no ob.icction ol1 thc rclcasc ol' accuscd/pctitioncr orr bail.
6.I'crusal ol- rccord in thc light o1' abovc subrttissions rcvcals that pctitiorlcr is chargcd fitr non-compoundablc off'cncc and at thc sitttrc tinrc, it also a1'lccts thc socicty at largc. In tlrc cvont ol chargc of' such a hcirrous natllrc, no lcnicncy cor'rld
bc shown to thc accuscd involvcd in such crinrcs. Scction 345 Cr. I'.C, has tabulatcd tl.rc o lfcnccs which ntay bc compoundablc. 'l'hc lcgislalurc has put a bar in rcspcct of ofl'cnccs which cannol bc compoundcd by thc partics, nor thc Court shall allow thc con-rposilion ol'ofl-cncc not rncnlioncd in scction 345 Cr. I'].C. In this rcspcct guidancc can bc lakcn liom tl-rc casc titlcd: Muhammad llawcth-Vs-7'he Stale, rcporlcd in 2004 SCMIT' 1170, whcrcin. it was hcld that:-
'lhe pirotul queslion which necd;
delerminulion v,oultl ha as lo e v,helher porlies can ba allot'ed lrt compound the o/fences'Y'hit:h ure nol compoundoble by virttte tt/ lha prov i.r ions Ltl' conlemPlaletl in .;cction -JJ5. Or.l'.('. slttttiull.t itt t icv, ol the speci./ic bu .Ir menlioned in suh,section (7) ol .\Lr'//(,,? -l l). ('r.l' ( lltr, i,t tt,' denying the.ftrcl lhat seclior'1 365-,'1.
l'.1'.(.'. reud wilh section 7(c) o/ the .lnli-'l crrorism ,4ct, l99t i:; not cornlttnntlubLc. 'l hc pro:'isirtn.s u's
contuined in sectiot't 315(7). ('r.l'.(:.
have hcen couched in.such ct ytlain untl .timplt lungr,ryt' lhttt tlt rt it.
hurdl,v 0t1!- sLopc /o, Ltn!- interprelalion excePt thol a rutn-compottndu hLe oflcnce ctnnot he mutle t'ontytuntlablc h.t thi.s Cotul /itr lhc sitttytle redson lhal no tttltt'ntlflh.nt, tlLlr'lirtn. in\(rlit)n ttt atldilion coultl be mutlc by. this Courl und il could onlY be done bY tht l,egislulura 0s lhi.\ usPatl of lhc maller.fall.t in i!.s exclusite donain of jurisdiction. 'l'he ;;rovisions us conlttinetl in.:ct:lirttt 315 ' ('r.l'.('.
connot bc .slretchctl too lar hY inchding the non-contYtundable a oflbncc thcrcin tmdt:r lhe gurb ttf huntunilttt ian grortnds or unt ttlhar -!'he exlraneolts considerulion
o/fbnces commilled by thc oppcllant Ltrc nol of grttt'r: untl alurntittg nulltt'e bri lhc .;trnte urc ogtintt lhe .sociellt us tr t'lnle und cunnttl lse lLt'tttitl(J t(t (otttl)ttttllJ lt). Lttt)' indit,irluul on un!- .\corc trhulsoercr' It nttrt, bc nolcd thot lttbululion of lht rtllt'nr',": tt\ lttLtlL' ttnJtr itr lirttt
315.Or. !'.O. bcing ununt higtrttt'r's'
remotte all doubl.s. nncerlainl)t und musl be laken os com;;lete untl comprehensive guicle .lbr
compounding tltc ot'ftnces. lhe .judicial con.\ensus scems lo he thttl "'l he l.e p isltrttrre has luitl dotln in thi.s .ttclion thc le.sl lbr dcter lhe clas.;cs rt/ o//b nces vhich con.ern i.ndit,itluuls onll ds
dislin m lhose which hat,e
rclbrence lo /h c inlcresl.\'o/ thc Sluta untl (.'ourl,s o / ltnt, canrut 1go beyontl /htt lcsl untl .:ubsl iltrl e/b r it onc o/ their ottn. Il i.t uttrirt.; I plt blic polit'y Io tontpotrntl tt tt tl n-c'ont Ltou n tlu h le c n('c kcc in viev, !he.;luta (tl cls cxislin on the dtle o
a 0Dplicalion
o //L nce .:
lo shuLl be compo
comDountletl
axca I v,here lha orovis ittrts rt seclion 315. or. P.C. urc ,t'tr I i.s ctl ./.!
ull 'mullars ntentioned in lhe ( I i m phcrs i,s 1t r ot i d a tl 1
1.'l'hough, thc comPlainant has cnlcrcd into a comPromisc with thc pctilioncr but in viclv ol'Ohaptcr XXIII ol Schcdr-rlc II ol Cr.l'}C, olfcnccs agalnsl olhcr laws (sPccial laws) arc lloll-
compoundablc and at thc sanrc timc duc to thc currcnt alarnrir.rg sitr.ralion of' dccciving yolrng gcncralior.r on prctcxts ol' scnding thcm abroad and dcmancling hugc amout.tt/s fiom thcir parcnls by thc agcnt maf ias (human tro//ickers), largc nun.rbcr o['young pcoplcs arc lositrg thcir livcs in thc hopc of bcttcr futurc, hcncc, any lcnicncy towards such clcmcnts wor-rld amount to cncouragc thc cvil o1'hurnan tralficking, hcncc, pctitionct' docs t.tot dcscrvc to bc rclcasc on bail on tl.rc fl'csh ground of' compromisc, hcncc, this pctition is disrtr isscd.
Announced.
ldltir P S(:Lrel0r) l)tt. t,lrrttt)ti rtl!"trrt t) t)i )t)'' f:ss1-
JUDGI'
Text extracted from the court's PDF and reflowed for reading. The court's official copy is authoritative.
Similar judgments
Closest in subject matter, from every court in the library.
- Peshawar High Court · 2023 MLD 1415 · 13 Oct 2022 Muhammad Ejaz Vs The State
- Lahore High Court · 2025 LHC 2089 · 27 Mar 2025 Muhammad Nawaz Vs The State etc.
- Sindh High Court · 2026 SHC KHI 1134 · 14 May 2026 MUHAMMAD SADIQ S/O MUHAMMD SALEEM (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)
- Lahore High Court · 2026 LHC 4814 · 22 Jul 2026 Muhammad Tahir Vs The State etc
- Sindh High Court · 2026 SHC KHI 139 · 29 Jan 2026 AMMAR S/O SAEED HUSSAIN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)