' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this bail petition contends that petitioner Ijaz Ahmad is complainant of the instant F.I.R. Registered for the murder of real sister Mst. Tanveer Kausar deceased against Asim, Ifran, Sohail and Waqar alias Qari son of Muhammad Malik and one Saeed; that on the day of occurrence complainant/petitioner Ijaz along with his brother Mehmood and father Munir Ahmad were going from Chak No,106 to get the household articles and that the motive behind the occurrence was that Ilyas, real brother of the above four accused persons, was murdered by a son of Tanveer Kausar deceased; that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and that Sarfraz eye-witness was inimical towards the petitioners as there was criminal litigation pending between the parties. The mairt argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the legal heirs of the deceased, including father and mother, have pardoned the petitioners in the Name of Almighty Allah without any Badl-e-Sulh and that on the basis of his compromise, the petitioners be released on bail. In this regard reliance has been placed on 2001 M LD 1757, 2001 PCr.LJ 1636, 1993 PCr.LJ 166, 2002 PCr.LJ 1256, 2001 PCr.LJ 130, 2003 PCr.LJ 998, 2002 PCr.LJ 220 and 2002 M LD 1502.
2. During the course of investigation, some crucial facts came to light discussion of which is imperative for a just decision of this bail petition i.e, an anonymous letter was received by the SP(Investigation) to the effect that the murder of Tanveer Kausar was committed by the complainant Ijaz, his sons and others. S.-I. Nazir opined that Tanveer Kausar had illicit liaison with one Ilyas who, according to the F.I.R., was murdered, Tanveer Kausar had gone to Jaranwala, she was brought by the petitioners and co-accused and was killed whereafter they lodged this false case. Nazir S.-I. Is present in Court. He has shown me an application on record dated 9-6-2005 from Habibullah and signed by him, he is a real brother of the complainant/petitioner Ijaz. The S.-I.
Further stated that it is mentioned in the said application that the deceased lady was done to death by the petitioners and others and he has given names of two eyes-witnesses in the said application, namely, Khalid Latif and Ijaz Hussain. His investigation was verified by Subtain Inspector present in Court. Confronted with the above narration of facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that what is submitted by S.-I. Nazir before this Court is against the record.
2A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners and their co- accused have fully been implicated by the eyewitnesses; that the offence against the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case this Court has a discretion either to entertain the compromise or not and that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court due to their role played in the commission of the offence.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. To reach at a just decision of this bail petition and to make a tentative assessment of the facts of the case, which is permissible under the law and which is strictly in accordance ' with the principles enunciated by the apex Court of the country in the judicial hierarchy and which I thought imperative, I had summoned both the Investigating Officers of the case. Syed Subtain Hussain Shah Inspector and Nazir Hussain S.-I. Are present in Court along with the record. Petitioner No,1 Ijaz Ahmad is complainant of the instant F.I.R. Registered for the murder of his real sister Mst. Tanveer Kausar deceased against Asim, Ifran, Sohail and Waqar alias Qari sons of Muhammad Malik and one Saeed with the allegation that on the day of occurrence complainant/petitioner Ijaz along with his brother Mehmood and father Munir Ahmad were going from Chak No,106 to purchase the household articles at 9-00 p.m. When they were waylaid by the accused mentioned therein who killed Mst. Tanveer Kausar, is not probable and is against the thoughts of a man of normal prudence because it is repellent to common sense that the accused would let off the male members of the family and would kill a lady without any resistance offered by the petitioners. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts narrated by the S.-I. Nazir are not borne out from the record, is not tenable because during investigation not only anonymous letter was received by the S.P.(Investigation) but existence of application of Habibullah printed with computer and his signatures on the same have not been denied by him. Habibullah is present in Court submits that he had submitted the said application at the asking of the police. It has not been denied that the facts in the F.I.R. By the petitioner Ijaz was found to be false. It is pertinent to mention here that there are specific provisions of law i.e, sections 194 and 195, P.P.C. Which provide punishments for the accused persons who fabricate false evidence to screen the real offenders which included capital sentence and imprisonment for life. Much stress has been laid down by the learned counsel for the petitioners for acceptance of compromise and for consequent grant of bail to the petitioners. I may observe here that the contumacious conduct of the petitioners coupled C with the facts brought on record during the course of investigation disentitles them for the discretionary relief of bail. The factum of compromise, by itself, speaks about the contumacious conduct of the petitioners because the petitioners, who have been found the actual culprits of their real sister, are making every efforts to save their skin from the case but have lost the fact that the compromise can only be entertained/accepted with the leave of the Court and it is not a fit case for its acceptance: Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that even after compromise the Court is competent to convict the offenders. In Muhammad Saleem and others v. The State (PLJ 2005 SC 957), the Hon`ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 961, observed as under:-- " However, section 311, P.P.C. Makes it clear that not withstanding anything contained in section 309, P.P.C. Or 310, P.P.C., where all the Walis do not waive or compound the right of Qisas or if the principle of fisad-fil-arz is attracted, the Court may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, punish the offender against whom the right of Qisas has been waived or compounded with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 14 years as Tazir .........................................................
5. In the afore-referred circumstances of the case this Court even is not inclined to entertain their compromise. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainant is distinguishable and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.