LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has denied post-arrest bail to a man in a case of ‘honour’ killing despite a ‘pardon’ by the legal heirs of the victim (the parents of both the suspect and the deceased).

Justice Shakil Ahmad observed that the legislature had amended the law to curb an ignominious practice in society, particularly following the promulgation of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 2000, that after doing away with a woman, either a wife, mother, daughter or sister on the pretext of honour, the real perpetrators would escape punishment by getting a pardon from the legal heirs of the victims.

In the instant case, petitioner Bilal Sikandar was arrested by Sargodha police for killing his 21-year-old sister on the pretext that she had brought dishonour to the family.

In his judgement, the judge observed that strangely enough, none of the family members, including the parents of the deceased, opted to become the complainant of the occurrence in which their own daughter was killed and they did not give even their account immediately.

The accused had killed his sister

Justice Ahmad noted that in view of the amendments, an offence committed in the name of or on the pretext of honour was excluded from the definition of ‘qatl-i-amd’ as contained in Section 302 (C) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

He said the law indicates that the murder committed in the name of or on the pretext of honour has to be calculated as a murder committed with premeditation in the background of honour.

The judge observed that the submission by the petitioner’s counsel that the legal heirs of the deceased, who happened to be her parents, pardoned the suspect/petitioner was of little avail as in view of the amendments to the law, a convict in an honour killing case could face a sentence of imprisonment for life even if legal heirs of a victim settled the matter by way of a compromise.

Therefore, the judge maintained, that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail on the basis of any statement made by the legal heirs of the deceased whereby they compounded the offence.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s argument against police investigation and observed that the suspect alone was named in the first information report (FIR) with the specific role of opening fire on the person, none other than his sister and he remained a fugitive for the period of around five months.

The judge noted that the murder weapon recovered from the suspect matched with the empty secured from the spot that had already been sent to the forensic science laboratory prior to the recovery of the firearm.

Justice Ahmad said upon tentative assessment of the material available with the prosecution, “this court is convinced that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused/petitioner has committed a non-bailable offence falling within the ambit of the prohibitory clause”.

Dismissing the bail petition, the judge directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months, from the receipt of the LHC order.

The Bhagtanwala Police Station of Sargodha registered the FIR on February 2 2024 against the petitioner for the offences under sections 302, 311 of the PPC.

Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2024