' This order will dispose of two petitions (Criminal Miscellaneous 1887-B of 1985 and Criminal Miscellaneous 1888-B of 1985). As a result of fight which took place on 22-3-1985 two cross-cases under section 302/325/148/149, P.P.C. Were registered with Police Station, Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat under F.I.R. Nos. 56 and 57. The petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1888-8/85 have been cited as accused persons in F.I.R. No, 56 whereas the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1887-B/85 are the accused of F.I.R. No,
57. Both set of accused are presently under detention in District Jail, Gujrat. They seek bail on the ground that they being closely related have entered into a compromise by pardoning each other. They have also agreed not to prosecute their respective cases and not to give evidence against each other. It may also be mentioned that before the learned Additional Sessions Judge they had submitted their affidavits to the same effect but the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 27-7-1985 refused to release them on bail observing that the ex parte affidavits cannot be acted upon as such affidavits normally carry no value. In view of this observation the petitioners have now placed on record of this Court a compromise petition signed by the petitioners. This petition has also been attested by the Superintendent, District Jail, Gujrat.
2. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties learned counsel argued that the trial is not likely to result in conviction and the holding of the trial in these circumstances will be a mere formality. They added that though under the law as it presently stands offence of murder is not compoundable yet a compromise in murder case should be encouraged as adoption of such a course is not only sanctioned by Shariah but is also necessary for promoting peace and amity in the society. Learned counsel for the State opposed these petitions and argued that the offence with which the petitioners are charged being non-compoundable the affidavits were not rightly acted upon by the learned trial Court. Learned State counsel, however, did not challenge the compromise stated to have been arrived at by the two set of accused, i,e,, the petitioners. Unless the factum of compromise is challenged no weight can be given to the argument that the affidavits filed carry no value. Moreover, the position obtaining today is that the compromise petitions signed by the petitioners and attested by the Superintendent, District Jail, Gujrat have been brought on record. In view of this compromise one set of petitioners who are witnesses against the other set of petitioners have agreed not to prosecute their case and not to depose against each other. Such an arrangement agreed upon between the parties introduces a redeeming feature into the case and in my view can legitimately be taken into account while considering the question of bail. The compromise arrived at between the parties is being noticed by Courts even after conviction, as such a compromise brings to an end the friction and enmity between the parties and contributes towards maintenance of peace and good relations between the parties.
3. As regards the technicalities of law the fact cannot be lost sight of that the trial is not likely to end in conviction as the parties are not prepared to give evidence in support of the prosecution version.
4. In the circumstances noted above, I am inclined to extend concession of bail to the petitioners in both the petitions. They shall be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Gujrat.