' This is a petition by Muhammad Shafi Tahir under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for his admission to pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the 2nd of June 1977 initially under section 307, P. P. C. At Police Station, Burewala for attempting on the life of his wife Mst.
Perveen Akhtar by setting fire to her after sprinkling kerosene oil on her a month before that date.
He was, however, released on interim bail by the A. D. C (0) Vehrari on the 21st of June 1977 which was confirmed on the 19th of July 1977 where after the challan was put in the same Court for his trial. To his ill-luck Mst. Perveen Akhtar succumbed to the effects of the burns four months after the alleged occurrence and the offence was altered to that under section 302, P. P. C. Resulting in issuance of the warrants for his arrest for the aggravated offence.
2. He moved the Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh for a fresh bail in the altered offence under section 302, P. P. C. Who had rightly rejected his petition for lack of jurisdiction as the case had been registered in Police Station Burewala, District Vehari.
3. The petitioner thereafter surrendered himself before this Court on the ground that Burewala Police having obtained the warrants of his arrest were on his tracks, so he could not go there.
4. A notice was, however, issued on the ground of a compromise between the appellant and his wife before her death. His counsel had placed three documents marked as "D", "E" and "F" on record supporting this plea about which the Investigating Officer who had brought the police file had expressed his ignorance and offered to produce the father of the deceased in Court.
5. In accordance with this undertaking Faiz Muhammad has appeared before me today who has confirmed the contents of the application "E" submitted by Mst. Perveen Akhtar (deceased) under her signatures to the A. D. C. (G), Vehari about the alleged compromise but has denied his own signatures on the application "F". Being a domestic affair it was not impossible that the injured wife might have pardoned her husband, the petitioner, which finds support from the order of the A. D. C
(G) as well. Although the offence is not compoundable yet this grant of free pardon by the aggrieved party would be an important factor to be considered even in case of his conviction for imposing the sentence. The Supreme Court has in some of such cases substantially reduced the sentence in view of the compromise between the parties, e. g. Khurshid Ahmad v. The State (1). This redeeming feature can also be taken int account for grant of bail to him, especially when no report was lodged abou the alleged offence for full one month. I, therefore, direct that the petitione shall not be arrested provided he can furnish a fresh bond in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (Rs, ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to th satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Vehari.