August 25, 2026
By Ahmed Saeed
LAHORE
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that a compromise or “raazinama” between the family of an honour killing victim, and the accused cannot secure bail. The court decided this in reference to a recent incident in Rajanpur district where an 18 year old girl was shot dead by two men and dismissed their post-arrest bail petitions filed by the accused.
Justice Syed Farhad Ali Shah rejected the bail applications of Muhammad Nasir son of Azeem Bakhsh and Pervaiz son of Ibrahim, both accused in the murder of Najma Mai, in a case registered under Sections 302, 311, 109 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Kot Mithan police station on June 11, 2021.
According to the FIR, “petitioners alongwith co-accused committed the murder of Najma Mai, aged about 17/18 years, by firing upon her with a 30-bore pistol.”
The FIR stated that police reached the place of occurrence after receiving “spy information”, where the body of Najma Mai was found, following which the case was registered.
Counsel for the petitioners argued before the court that the accused were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.
The defence further argued that Kaniz Mai, the mother of the deceased, along with eye-witnesses Rabnawaz and Muhammad Saleem, had submitted sworn affidavits resiling from the prosecution case and had recorded statements to that effect.
The counsel maintained that the accused had been behind bars since their arrest and that, in view of the affidavits withdrawing the earlier allegations, they were entitled to post-arrest bail.
The Additional Prosecutor General Punjab opposed the petitions, arguing that the accused had been specifically nominated in the FIR and specific roles had been attributed to them.
The prosecution argued that the affidavits submitted by the complainant and witnesses could not benefit the accused at the bail stage, particularly as the deponents were closely related to them.
The prosecutor also pointed out that the case involved Section 311 PPC, relating to Karo-Kari or honour killing, along with Section 302 PPC, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution further submitted that “the weapon of offence was also recovered from petitioner Muhammad Nasir.”
Justice Shah, while examining the record, observed that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific allegation of committing the murder of deceased Najma Mai, using a firearm (30-bore pistol) with the abetment of co-accused Abdul Karim and Ghulam Murtaza.
The judge noted that the prosecution case was supported by witness statements and medical evidence, while a 30-bore pistol had also been recovered from Muhammad Nasir during the investigation.
The court also took into account that the accused had remained fugitives for a prolonged period before being declared proclaimed offenders.
“It is a well-settled principle of law that a proclaimed offender forfeits certain normal concessions regarding the grant of bail”, the order said.
Addressing the compromise relied upon by the defence, the court held that it could not extend any benefit to the accused.
“It is pertinent to mention that although one of the legal heirs submitted an affidavit regarding a compromise with the petitioners, this cannot extend any benefit to them, as the deponent Abdul Karim is himself a co-accused in the instant FIR,” the order stated.
The court also rejected the affidavits in which the complainant and witnesses had resiled from their earlier statements.
“Although the complainant and witnesses submitted affidavits resiling from their earlier statements, these cannot be taken into consideration at this stage,” Justice Shah held.
The judge observed that under Section 311 PPC read with Section 345 Cr.P.C., honour killing offences are non-compoundable.
“Under Section 311 PPC read with Section 345 Cr.P.C., offences involving honour killings (Karo-Kari) are non-compoundable, and the charged offences attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.,” the order stated.
Justice Shah also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Muhammad Akram Khan versus The State (PLD 2001 SC 96), which held that “ legally and morally speaking, nobody has any right nor can anybody be allowed to take law in his own hands to take the life of anybody in the name of ‘Ghairat.”
Concluding the order, Justice Shah held that prima facie reasonable grounds existed connecting the accused with the alleged offences.
“Persons involved in such heinous acts do not deserve leniency and must be dealt with firmly to curb moral turpitude in society,” the judge observed.