PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court rejected bail plea of a man charged in an honour-related double murder of his daughter and another person, ruling that any compromise by legal heirs of the deceased was inconsequential as the offence attracted principle of fasad-fil-arz (mischief on earth).

A single-member bench of Justice Sabitullah Khan ruled that through Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretextof Honour) Act,2016, Section 299 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) was amended, whereby an offence committed in the name or on the pretext of honour had been brought within the ambit of fasad-fil-arz.

`Under Section 311 PPC, where the principle of fasad-fil-arz is attracted, the court, having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, may punish an offender-despite waiver or compounding of the right of qisas -with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years as ta`zir,` the bench observed.

It said that the proviso appended thereto further mandated that where the offence had been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour, the punishment should be imprisonment for life.Petitioner Naib Gul was charged in an FIR registered on Sep 20, 2025, at Dossali police station in North Waziristan, under sections 302 (intentional murder) and 311 (fasad-fil-arz) of PPC.

The SHO of the said police station claimed that they had received information about a double-murder following which they proceeded to the place of occurrence and found bodies of a man and a woman having firearm injuries. He claimed that the occurrence was stated to have talcen place in the background of so-called honour as the accused suspected the deceased of having illicit relations.

The bench observed that a tentative assessment of the material available on record revealed that the petitioner stood nominated in a case involving the murder of two persons, allegedly committed in thename of so-called honour.

`The nature of the accusation, thus, is not only grave but also carries the punishment of death or imprisonment for life, attracting the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),` the bench observed.

The bench said that the petitioner was not a stranger to the occurrence; rather, being the father of one of the deceased, the occurrence was alleged to have tal(en place within the precincts of his own house. `In such circumstances, the burden lies heavily upon him to explain the unnatural death occurring within his domain, a responsibility which, at this stage, appears not to have been satisfactorily discharged.

`It is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner is charged not only under Section 302 of PPC but also under Section 311 of PPC,which independently empowers the courttoproceedagainstanoffender on the principle of fasad-fil-arz, irrespective of any compromise or the stance of the legal heirs. Thus, in such cases, the question ofnon-contestation or willingness of the legal heirs loses its signiHcance at the bail stage,` the bench pointed out.

About the petitioner`s counsel plea that the mother and brother of the deceased man were unwilling to pursue any claim, complaint, or legal proceedings against the accused, the bench observed that the court remained cognisant of an unfortunate and ignominious practice that gained prevalence in society, particularly following the promulgation of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.

`In numerous instances, perpetrators of offences committed under the pretext of honour involving thekilling of female relatives such as wives, mothers, daughters, or sisters were able to evade punishment by securing pardon from the legal heirs (walis),` the court observed.

Explaining the evolution of laws to check honour killing, the bench pointed out that the legislature enacted amendments through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004 (Act I of 2005), introducing the concept of offences committed in the name or pretext of honour.

It also explained different amendments made in laws through the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016.

The bench pointed out that in terms of Section 345 (7) of CrPC, no offence was amenable to waiver or compounding except in the manner expressly provided therein and under Section 311 of PPC.