Datasets:

mwz

/

Pak-Law

like 0

Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 7 :- I have gone through the order rendered by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. With utmost respect, I do not agree with the reasonings recorded, hence, render my own findings. SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.:- The instant case bearing FIR No. 64/2016 dated 05.02.2016 offence under section 302, 324, 34 PPC read with section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 registered with police station Samanabad, Lahore is a glaring example of atrocious act in a civilized society of 21st Century. The background of said untoward incident is that in fact there are two groups of criminals operating within the local limits of police station Samanabad, one led by Ch. Saleem while the other group is led by Sajid Chaudhary. Both the groups are at daggers drawn with each other. On 05.02.2016 at 3.15 p.m. two members of Sajid Chaudhary group were found in Rashid Amin Chowk, where they were confronted by their opponents. As a consequence, both of them were fired upon in the said Chowk. Another person from the same group namely Mashooq Butt reached there to rescue them but he was also dealt in the same manner. Thereafter, members of said group of criminals conspired with each to chalk out a plan to tackle with the situation. Hence to fulfill their nefarious design, present petitioner, co-accused Waqar under the patronage of Ch. Saleem entered into nearby street where the house of complainant is located. They resorted to reckless firing, one of the fire shot made by petitioner with rifle .223 bore hit Bahadar Ali aged 14 years on his temporal region while co-accused Waqar fired Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 8 :- hitting Safdar Ali on his forehead, another minor aged 13 years when both brothers were standing in the balcony of their own house. The said gruesome act was committed with nefarious designs to create a concocted counter-version against the earlier incident with ulterior motives. The mode and manner of occurrence by the assailant show their inter-se connectivity qua their mindset. After committing the double murder, petitioner alongwith others restrained inmates of deceased family inside their house on gun point while their house was locked from outside. They were threatened not to report the matter to police or even to attend their children. The most nasty aspect of this case is that after the commission of said offence, Ch. Saleem being in league with the local police lodged First Information Report as complainant while depicting a false, baseless and concocted story by distorting actual facts and circumstances Sadaqat Ali real Chacha of both deceased rescued himself from the clutches of the accused person, he approached police station where he lodged a complaint which was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. with the intervention of high-ups of police. Due to sensational nature of this case it was investigated by senior police officers. During the course of investigation the recovery of rifle .223 bore was affected from the petitioner which was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. It also matched with the empties collected from the place of occurrence. Therefore, report of Forensic Science Laboratory is positive in nature. The investigation concluded and found the active participation of the Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 9 :- petitioner in the above said double murder with a specific role of causing firearm injury to one of deceased on temporal region. 2. Vide order dated 18.05.2020, this Court requisitioned report from the learned trial court. The said report bearing No. 55 dated 01.06.2020 is placed before us. The report of the trial court is ambiguous on many aspects. The trial court has not fixed the responsibility of delay rather a confusing picture has been portrayed. Order passed by the learned Single Bench of High Court dated 24.02.2020 while dismissing the bail application has demonstrated a different picture, which actually occasioned for delay in conclusion of trial from the record. Admittedly the petitioner was taken into custody on 11.06.2016, however, the co-accused escaped from appearance before trial court one after the other on 27.04.2017, 16.05.2017, 15.06.2017, 21.6.2017, 13.09.2017, 23.10.2017, 18.12.2017, 21.12.2017, 05.01.2018, 15.01.2018 and 24.01.2018. As such the accused party practically made it impossible for the trial court to frame charge against them. Nevertheless the trial court after marking the attendance of all the accused persons framed charge on 10.07.2018. The highhandedness of the accused party continued even after the framing of charge, the accused persons once again while playing the same tactics absented themselves one by one on 06.08.2018, 22.09.2018, 19.10.2018, 09.11.2018, 19.11.2018, 29.11.2018, 05.12.2018, 11.12.2018, 24.12.2018, 26.01.2019, 30.01.2019, 07.2.2019, 20.02,2019, 27.02.2019, 13.03.2019, 26.03.2019, 13.04.2019, 23.04.2019, 18.05,2019, 29.05.2019, 11.06.2019, 21.08.2019, 07.11.2019, Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 10 :- 13.11.2019, 30.11.2019, 19.12.2019 and 13.02.2020. The data mentioned above speaks volume qua the attitude of the accused persons towards Court proceedings. Otherwise, it has now become customary that the accused with crude criminal mindset deliberately adopt such tricks in order to delay the Court proceedings with an intent to exhaust the other party and to further avail the benefit of proviso 3 of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The element of ill design for the purpose of delay of trial is floating in abundance in this case. The report of trial court, wherein the complainant party was partly held responsible for delay is nothing but made beyond the real facts. 3. The real cause of non-appearance of complainant and PWs before the trial court cannot be attributed to them; as it was not intentional; rather they are forced to avoid appearance, because they are apprehending serious threats to their lives. The complainant has already made several attempts in order to seek police protection but all efforts made by the complainant proved futile. Even at one stage the police guards were deployed vide notification dated 29.08.2016 but unfortunately those were withdrawn due to influence of accused party. This very fact was not brought in our notice by the trial court. During the course of proceedings before this Court, Sadaqat Ali (complainant) was present in person. He was given the right of audience. He explained in the Court the reasons in detail for non-appearance of complainant and prosecution witnesses. He further apprised that he had already moved various applications to police hierarchy, even to the Chief Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 11 :- Justice, Lahore High Court but all efforts proved fruitless. He further informed that lawlessness of the aforesaid groups can be gauged from the fact that (364) empties of sophisticated weapons were recovered from the spot. This statement of the complainant was not controverted by anyone present in the Court from either side. Another portion of report that three PWs had compromised with the accused person before trial court is in fact settlement in between the two groups having no nexus with the case of prosecution lodged at the instance of Sadaqat Ali complainant. The prosecution version advanced by Sadaqat Ali complainant is still intact in all respects. Nevertheless, the trial court has assured this Court that trial can be concluded within the shortest possible time subject to the cooperation of the parties. 4. Another alarming situation has been brought in the notice of this Court during record inspection that he police file was manipulated by distracting Case Dairies from the original record, during court custody. In this regard "Rapt" has already been recorded in local police station. This very fact alone is sufficient to raise alarm towards the gravity of situation. 5. Now the pivotal question which requires determination is whether after the expiry of certain period, benefit of proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. could be available to the accused in all eventualities or there can be any legal restriction imposed by the law. To construe the legal imports of law, it is advantageous to reproduce it:- Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 12 :- Section 497. When bail may be taken in cases of non- bailable offence.-- 1. When any person accused of non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in- charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of [an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years]]: Provided that ……………………… Provided further that ………….. Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf or in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force, direct that any person shall be released on bail-- (a) who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; or (b) who, being accused of an offence punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and whose trial for such offence has not concluded. Provided further that the provisions of the foregoing proviso shall not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The provisos 3 & 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. are co-existent qua their application; hence, the imports of the same cannot be constructed in isolation rather to interpret it conjointly. The language of proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. demonstrates a general principle which is clear, unambiguous in its texture Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 13 :- rather it in express terms confers jurisdiction upon the court to entertain and extend benefit of proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. in the spirit of language of said provision pursuant to the intent of the legislature, however, the said concession has been controlled while imposing certain restriction while introducing proviso 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The bare perusal of proviso 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C override to some extent proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. by limiting its efficacy by placing conditions against the general principle as such it has laid an embargo which has to satisfy prior to availing concession of proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C., resultantly, these are practically exceptions to the general principle entails from proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The proviso 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. envisages distinct legal requisites in relation to its applicability. (i). That the provision of third proviso of sub-section shall not apply to previously convicted offender in an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (ii) Or to a person who in the opinion of the court is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism. The plane reading of first requisite depicts it to be mandatory in nature by virtue of its language which is otherwise clear unambiguous transparent in its application. It speaks about those weighed down with criminal background. In other words any criminal who is previously convicted is out rightly barred from the consideration to avail the benefit of proviso 3 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. This condition is to apply stricto-sensu in all Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 14 :- fairness without compromising it in any manner; hence, all those who are stigmatized/tainted with criminal background are ousted from consideration. However, the second limb of proviso 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. is discretionary in its applicability. The language itself is self explanatory ensuing the intent of said provision. While introducing this limb of said provision the legislature has empowered the court to form an opinion qua the person involved in a criminal case if brought forth while taking into consideration the act, mode and manner of occurrence and other existing circumstances placed before the court without being prejudiced by any previous record. The Court while forming opinion about the criminal declaration has to satisfy all norms of legal aspects so that opinion made should not frustrate any ethics of decency and fairness to meet the ends of justice. The opinion of the court should meet all legal justiciable requirements demanded by the law in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 6. The instant case exclusively relates to second limb of the proviso 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Although there is no denial that this group is involved in eight other criminal cases of serious nature but even if this aspect is kept-a-aside the heinousness of the act committed by the petitioner in the present case when evaluated/scrutinized in its entirety, it is loaded with overwhelming material available on the record which connects the petitioner as main perpetrator of double murder case. Thus no other opinion can be formed in this case except that the petitioner while joining hands with others had Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 15 :- committed a gruesome act of double murder. Hence, accumulative effect of the entire discussion leads towards one and the only opinion in the mind of the Court, which brings him in the category of hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal as stipulated under proviso 4 of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by this Court was subject matter of an earlier case, which was dealt by a Single Bench of Sindh High Court in a salutary judgment titled "MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE" (PLD 1986 Karachi 437) in which it was enunciated by the learned Court that even in the absence of previous record, an accused can be declared hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal subject to act, mode and manner of occurrence in that very case. A number of judgments with divergent view were in fields from other Courts, hence to resolve this controversy leave to appeal was granted to pronounce an authoritative judgment on the subject, even it was considered a case of first impression before this Court, Therefore, in the case titled "MOUNDER and others versus THE STATE" (1988 SCMR 1113). A larger Bench of five Hon'ble Members was constituted which approved the judgment of Singh High Court mentioned above in the case "MOUNDAR and others vs. THE STATE" (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 934). Relevant at p/939 reproduced:- "The word "criminal" cannot be given a special meaning as a person already convicted of a crime for in that case, the category of provision convicts having been separately mentioned as disentitled to the privilege of release on bail on the ground of statutory delay, the words under interpretation to the effect that the person is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, would be rendered completely redundant Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 16 :- and meaningless. According to the learned Judge, therefore, opinion on this question can be based upon the materials available in the case under trial as well as any other material which may be produced by the prosecution to help the Court in formation of such opinion. Somewhat similar view was expressed by another learned Judge of the Sindh High Court in Gull Khan and others v. The State PLD 1986 Karp.629, in which the word "criminal" was construed in the context of provision under consideration, to mean a person "accused of criminal offence or who is known to be or reputed to committing crime". At page No. 941 it is observed as under:- "In subsection (1) of section 497 the legislature has already empowered the Court even before the commencement of the trial to make a tentative assessment of the evidence collected against an accused person or likely to be produced in the trial against him, in order to reach the conclusion whether there appears a reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years. The provision under consideration here is a proviso to the same subsection, and, therefore, it will be reasonable to construe it in the same manner authorizing a Court to take into consideration the evidence collected by the prosecution for purpose of determining whether the accused is a criminal of the categories prescribed therein. Of course the Court can take into consideration and indeed in most of the cases it will take into consideration other materials produced by the prosecution in order to show that the case falls within the prohibitions contained in the 4th proviso". 7. As a consequence of the facts and circumstances, the law on the subject, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the allegation levelled against the petitioner regarding commission of such a heinous offence squarely comes with the ambit of a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal, hence, he is not entitled to avail the benefit of proviso 3 of section 497 Crl.P. No. 443-L of 2020 -: 17 :- (1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any force in the said petition which is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. Judge Lahore 24.06.2020 Approved for reporting. 'Athar'

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.445-L of 2020 (Against the order dated 17.3.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in T.A. No.161169 of 2020) Akhtar Ali …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): In person. For the State: Mr. Khurram Khan, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab For Respondent No.3: In person. Date of hearing: 15.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Akhtar Ali, petitioner, is engaged in litigation with his estranged wife Tania Kousar; he is also accused in a criminal case registered at the instance of one Mst. Ghazala Bibi; he has arrayed both of them in his quest for transfer of cases pending adjudication before a learned Judicial Magistrate at Sheikhupura to a Court at Gojra District Nankana Sahib. After his failure before the learned District & Sessions Judge Sheikhupura, his request before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court Lahore met with no better fate and the learned Judge having found the motion scandalous and frivolous, burdened him with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. It is in this backdrop that he has resigned before us as a last resort. 2. In his move before the Courts below, we have found his accusations directed against the learned Judges as outrageous as well as scandalous; he has also targeted the members and office bearers of the local Bar, apparently having no axe to grind in his trivial contests wherein we have found the respondents equally reckless and abrasive. We view the repugnant course adopted by the parties before the learned Courts with disdain. It is fundamentally important for the peaceful preservation of any society that its Judges attend call of their office fearlessly with dignity, respect and independence so as to sit on the judgment between the contestants, regardless of their status or station, without let or hindrance. A society cannot countenance obstruction or Criminal Petition No.445-L of 2020 2 interference with the administration of justice without incurring disastrous consequences, therefore, to ensure freedom to a Judge within the remits of law is a duty cast upon all and sundry without exception and immunity, 3. The petitioner while hurling accusations threw both caution as well as courtesy to the wind and the learned Judge-in-Chamber was well within the bounds of law to saddle him with a substantial cost. The petitioner, however, before us has expressed remorse and regret, throwing himself at the mercy of the Court; he pledged profound respect and courtesy that appertains to a tribunal with an undertaking to be extremely careful in the future. 4. Restraint is a better part of judicial calling; we would never exercise coercive authority of the State vesting in us since time immemorial in order to wreak vengeance or as a means to uphold our dignity or respect that we solemnly believe ‘must rest on surer foundations’, nonetheless, given the gravity of petitioner’s reckless behavior we would not let him off without a tag. With a stern warning and while exercising restraint, we reduce the cost imposed by the High Court to a sum of Rs.2000/- as a symbolic reminder to the petitioner for his mischief. 5. We entertain no manner of doubt that the learned Magistrate, conscious of his calling as a tryst with divinity, uninfluenced by the scandalous conduct of the parties, would dispose of the pending matters in accordance with law, in the fullness of time with all convenient dispatch. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.2000/- as cost with the District Nazir Sheikhupura within a fortnight. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Lahore, the 15th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial Mr. Justice Faisal Arab Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.445 of 2020 (Against the order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court D.I. Khan Bench in Cr. Misc. B.A. No.61-D of 2020) Ghulam Abbas …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saleemullah Ranazai, ASC For the State: Ms. Aysha Tasneem, ASC Date of hearing: 04.06.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Abdul Latif, deceased, along with Muhammad Hanif and Hafiz Muhammad Rafique, PWs, was on way to attend Court proceedings on 22.12.2004 when at 8:15 p.m. within the remit of Police Station City Dera Ismail Khan, Ghulam Abbas petitioner, on a motorbike, driven by co-accused, subsequently identified as Iftikhar Ahmed, intercepted the entourage; repeated fire shots fatally hit the deceased while Muhammad Hanif PW survived the gunshot. Previous blood feud is cited as motive for the crime. Petitioner stayed away from the law and was finally arrested on 14.1.2020; co-accused was acquitted during his absence. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Acquittal of co-accused, initially arrayed as unknown, has not been received as a valid ground for petitioner’s release on bail, both by the Court of Session as well as the High Court, a view found by us as unexceptionable. Similarly, petitioner’s advanced age with health, statedly frail, albeit with no specific disorder cannot extenuate abscondance of almost 16 years having regard to the fatal role assigned Criminal Petition No.445 of 2020 2 to him. Statements of the witnesses including an injured supported by medical evidence constitute “reasonable grounds” within the contemplation of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, aggravated by petitioner’s absence going on for an age, unsurmountably stand in impediment to his release on bail, a concession discretionary in nature. View taken by the High Court, being within the bounds of law, does not call for interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 4th June, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.446-L of 2016 (Against the order dated 05.03.2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No.4722 of 2019). Rana Abdul Khaliq …Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State, etc. …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Qari Nadeem Ahmed Awaisi, ASC Respondent No.2 : In person For the State : Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab with Tariq Mehmood, S.I. Date of Hearing : 13.05.2019 JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Impugned herein is order dated 5.3.2019, whereby a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Lahore High Court admitted Muhammad Akram, respondent to bail in anticipation to his arrest; upon failure of a bank cheque issued by him towards re-payment of loan, he was required in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, The learned High Court confirmed ad interim bail on the ground that respondent did not ‘misuse’ ad interim bail and that he was going to be released on post arrest bail if at all, remitted into custody. The learned Judge in order to substantiate his point of view, referred to the case of Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others versus The State (PLD 2017 SC 730). 2. Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably Criminal Petition No.446-L of 2019. 2 demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation. Ever since the advent of Hidayat Ullah Khan’s case (PLD 1949 Lahore 21), the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of mala fide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law, situations wherein Court must not hesitate to rescue innocent citizens; these considerations are conspicuously missing in the present case. The case referred to by the learned Judge-in-Chamber unambiguously re-affirms above judicial doctrine and thus reliance being most inapt is unfortunate to say the least. 3. The respondent is in attendance; despite notice and knowledge, he has not arranged representation, seemingly as a strategy to win time and this does not absolve this Court to decide this case posted for hearing, at public expense. Impugned order being in contravention of settled judicial principles cannot sustain. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 13th of May, 2019 Ghulam Raza/* JUDGE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 (Against the judgment dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl A. No.364- J/2011, Crl. Revision No.1211/2011 along with M.R. No.476/2011) Amjad & another (in Crl. P. No.457-L/2016) Imtiaz Ahmed (in Crl. P. No.400-L/2016) Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another (in Crl. P. No.457-L/2016) Amjad & others (in Crl. P. No.400-L/2016) Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Baleegh-uz-Zaman, ASC (in Cr.P.457-L/2016) Mr. Imran Raza Chadhar, ASC (in Cr.P.400-L/2016) For the State Mr. Amjad Rafique, Addl. Prosecutor General. Date of hearing: 19.10.2020. J U D G M E N T Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Azam, 20, deceased, was shot dead at 11:00 p.m. on 3.3.2008 within the precincts of Police Station Barrana District Jhang, while irrigating his land alongside the witnesses; incident was reported by deceased’s brother Imtiaz Ahmed (PW-1), same night 12:30 a.m. at Adda Kalokay. According to the complainant, they were simultaneously ploughing and irrigating the land when at about 11:00 p.m, the deceased went to turn off the electric switch, surprised by the petitioners, son and father inter se, accompanied by Imtiaz and Fayyaz with two unknown assailants, differently armed. In the Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 2 electric bulb light, Fayyaz accused exhorted to avenge the previous insult whereupon the witnesses rushed to rescue the deceased, who took refuge inside a small room and it was within their view that Amjad petitioner with a .30 caliber pistol targeted the deceased on the left side of his belly followed by another shot by his father while he had already fallen on cot; remainder of the accused threatened the witnesses to stay at bay. It is alleged that a short while latter, the accused shot one of the females of their clan to colour the incident as a reaction over family honour. It is further alleged that a day before the fateful incident, the deceased had an altercation with the accused over use of electric motor without his permission and it is in this backdrop that the accused on the instigation of Nawaz son of Maali and Mahni son of Muhammad settled the score. Autopsy, conducted at 11:30 a.m, noted two entry wounds on left lower side of the abdomen. Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigation, the complainant preferred to prosecute the case through a private complaint; upon indictment on 4.11.2009, the accused claimed trial; they rallied themselves behind the position taken by Amjad petitioner. Unimpressed by the plea, the learned trial Judge proceeded to convict the petitioners under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to death vide judgment dated 26.10.2011; remainder of the accused were acquitted from the charge; a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court Lahore vide impugned judgment dated 16.2.2016 maintained the convictions, however, altered the penalty of death into imprisonment for life, vires whereof, are being assailed, both by the convicts as well as the complainant, latter seeking revival of the death penalty. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that facts manifestly evident on the record do not justify a guilty verdict as the prosecution miserably failed to establish “proof beyond doubt” to sustain the charge; while highlighting the improbability of the episode, the learned counsel has referred to firearm injury sustained by Muhammad Yousaf petitioner, completely suppressed in the crime report; he has also referred to medico legal examination, twice conducted on Shahida Bibi daughter of Yousaf petitioner on 4.3.2008 and 26.3.2008 to argue that position taken by the accused during the trial truthfully preponderates over the inherently flawed Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 3 ocular account furnished by the prosecution. Acquittal of majority of co-accused, though with roles inconsequential, has, nonetheless, been cited as an additional predicament confronting the prosecution. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment; according to him, the scales are in balance with a conscionable wage. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, prayed for enhancement of life imprisonment into penalty of death on the ground that once the Court had believed the prosecution evidence, coldblooded murder of the deceased, a youth in prime part of his age, petitioners ought to have been visited with the penalty aptly imposed by the learned trial Court. There was no judicially recognized mitigating circumstance to alter the penalty of death, a legal sentence, into imprisonment for life, concluded the learned counsel. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Prosecution case is founded on ocular account furnished by Imtiaz Ahmed, Amjad Ali and Wajid Ali, examined respectively as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3; their testimonies have been unreservedly received by the Courts below with the exception of acquitted co-accused, assigned roles trivially different. Besides the complainant, Sajiad Ali (PW-6) testified to independently establish the motive, however, discarded by the High Court, nonetheless. Going by the graphic details of ocular account, both the petitioners are unambiguously shown being responsible for one shot each to the deceased, opined as cause of death, individually as well as collectively, in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased received both the fire shots inside a small room, improvised at the venue to house tube-well gears. According to the crime report as well as statements of the witnesses, the deceased received both the shots on a cot covered by a bedding, a position that runs counter to depiction of the dead body in column 24 of the inquest report. Unanimous acceptance of prosecution evidence both by the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court, nonetheless, escaped fundamental issues raised by the defence, in the following plea: “I am innocent. The complainant party is big landlord of the Allaqa. I am the poor man and labourer by profession. On the day of occurrence, Amjad, Imtiaz and Waris along with Muhammad Azam, since deceased, abducted my sister Mst. Shahida from my house for the purpose to commit forcible rape with her and took her at an abandoned place, confined her and locked the room and Muhammad Azam was busy in committing rape upon her. When I came to know, I went there, broke/open the door to rescue Mst. Shahida from the hands of Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 4 Muhammad Azam deceased. Muhammad Azam started firing from inside the room on me. I also made fire shot in self defence of my person and honour during this cross firing, Shahida my sister, Yousaf my father were injured at the hands of Muhammad Azam deceased and Muhammad Azam also sustained injury who later on died. The local police was under the influence of complainant party, he refused to got medically examined Mst. Shahida for rape as well as her injuries. My mother applied to the Area Magistrate in this respect but the I.O. only got medically examination of her injury. My mother again applied for medico legal of Mst. Shahida for rape and under the order of Area Magistrate, she was medically examined. I made firing to save the honour and person of my sister Mst. Shahida from Muhammad Azam and others. Shahida was not cited as PW in this case, nor she was made accused. The investigation was conducted by malafide. My mother Sattan filed an application before Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Aqeel, learned ASJ u/s 22-A, 22-B Cr.P.C. for registration of case. The certified application is Ex.DB. The learned ASJ pleased to pass order dated 28.4.2008 which is Ex.DB/1. The act of accused is very desperate and palace. I am innocent.” These two diametrical positions essentially require a thorough examination as the latter in the event of being found near to reality, even if not found as the whole truth, would devastatingly undermine the entire prosecution case. Muhammad Yousaf petitioner was medically examined under a police docket shortly after the occurrence at 4:15 a.m. and the medical officer observed following injuries on his person: 1. A lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm with inverted margins, on the palmer of the index finger of the left hand near base. Injury was kept under observation and X-Ray was advised. 2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm with everted margins on dorsum of the index finger of the left hand, 3 cm above the base of the finger. KUO. Probable duration of the injuries is given as between 3 to 9 hours; medical examination conducted at 4:15 a.m; the time frame on the outer side suggests that Muhammad Yousaf had already received the bullet injury and was, thus, physically incapacitated to shoot the deceased at the stated point of time as alleged by all the witnesses with one voice. Prosecution’s complete silence on the receipt of firearm injury by Muhammad Yousaf, intriguingly reflects upon its case. There is yet another part of the story that may not find a buyer; according to the witnesses, Amjad petitioner first shot the deceased who then felled on the cot inside the room and it was thereafter that Muhammad Yousaf petitioner targeted him with the second shot, landing on the same part of the body; there does not appear any earthly reason for Muhammad Yousaf to join the undertaking already being effectively carried out by his son. Presence of a cot with a bedding in a small room, otherwise designed to manage tube-well apparatus, nonetheless, in the backdrop of plea raised by the Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 5 petitioners appears to be a circumstance fraught with suspicion, reinforced by medico legal examination of Shahida Bibi at 9:45 a.m. under a police docket with following observations: 1. A stitched wound of about 19 cm long having 13 stitches extending from xiphisternum to pubic area on the interior abdominal wall. 2. A wound of 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the right lateral aspect of abdominal wall about 16 cm below and lateral to injury No.1. She was once again examined through police on a magisterial direction for the determination of sexual assault albeit with findings inconclusive. Recovery of pistol from Amjad petitioner is inconsequential whereas hatchet attributed to Muhammad Yousaf runs counter to the prosecution case set up qua the accused. Massive suppression of injuries endured by some of the accused and screening of Shahida Bibi from the scene are circumstances that inevitably cast their shadows on the prosecution case. Even if the explanation offered by the accused is not viewed as the whole truth, in view of circumstances mentioned above, the occurrence does not appear to have taken place in the manner as alleged in the crime report with events faltering on the scales of probability. An innocent proxy lurking behind a twisted tale presents a real danger of error and, thus, it would be expedient as well as safe to extend benefit of doubt to both the petitioners to rule out the apprehended risk. Criminal Petition No.457-L of 2016 is converted into appeal and allowed. The petitioners/appellants are acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. As a natural corollary, Criminal Petition No.400-L of 2016 stands dismissed. Judge Judge Judge Lahore, the 19th October, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 458 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in Cr.M(BA) No. 160-M/2021) Hussain Ahmed … Petitioner VERSUS The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, ASC Syed Tariq Aziz, AOR For the State: Mr. Shumayl Aziz, Addl. A.G. KPK Date of Hearing: 14.06.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 46 dated 29.05.2020 under Section 302/34 PPC at Police Station Nawagai, District Bajaur. The same relief was denied to him by the learned Trial Court as also by the High Court vide impugned order. 2. As per contents of the crime report, there was a land dispute between the complainant and the petitioner and his co- accused. On the fateful day and time, the accused were plowing the disputed land with tractor when complainant along with the deceased went there and asked them to leave the land. Upon this the accused person fired at the head of the deceased with a pistol, due to which he lost his life. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that in the FIR no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and only a general allegation has been leveled; that nothing has been mentioned in the FIR as to whose fire hit the deceased; that under the similar circumstances, the co-accused has been granted bail, therefore, the petitioner also deserves the same concession; Criminal Petition No. 458/2021 2 that neither any empty nor the weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner and that the investigation was conducted dishonestly and real facts were suppressed just to frame the petitioner in the false case. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment. He mainly contended that as per the law laid down by the superior courts, the order of the Trial Court is not to be interfered with unless there is perversity in the order. He added that during investigation, the role of causing fire shot was attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he is the main accused and does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Law Officer and have perused the record with their assistance. 6. Admittedly, no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner in the FIR and the allegation leveled against him is of general nature. It was during investigation that the role of fire shot was attributed to the petitioner. However, it was the case of the petitioner that the Police Diaries were manipulated by the Police. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the learned High Court has admitted this fact but it did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter on the pretext that only tentative assessment of the available record is required. Admittedly vide order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court, the co-accused of the petitioner namely Liaquat Ali has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court on the ground that there is no mention of eye-witnesses in the FIR and there is conflict between the role assigned to him in the FIR and the statements made by the eye-witnesses. On our query, learned Law Officer admitted that the record was tampered with during the investigation. In these circumstances, when the learned High Court had admitted about the tampering of the record, while following the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9). Admittedly, neither any empty was taken into possession from the place of occurrence nor the weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner. From the tentative assessment of the record and keeping in view the provision of Criminal Petition No. 458/2021 3 Section 497(2) Cr.P.C, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case squarely falling within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. As a consequence, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 14th of June, 2021 Not Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED Criminal Petition No.46-P of 2015 Iftikhar Ali …Petitioner Versus Gul Rehman and another ..Respondent For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Altaf Khan, ASC For the Respondent(s): Mr. Muhammad Nisar, Addl. A.G. K.P. Date of hearing: 12.7.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J-. Fazal Ilahi, 48, in the backdrop of a dispute over immovable property was shot dead at 8:00 p.m. on 1.1.2012 within the precincts of Police Station Zaida District Swabi; the incident was reported by his brother Iftikhar who singularly blamed Gul Rehman respondent for the crime; convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Swabi under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 16.7.2012, however, acquitted from the charge by a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed on the ground that in the face of overwhelming evidence primarily comprising ocular account by natural witnesses, there was no occasion for the High Court on prosecution’s alleged failure on peripheral issues, an error that, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, results into miscarriage of justice. 2. We have gone through the impugned reasoning recorded by the High Court to overturn the conviction and found it to have been swayed primarily by a plea of alibi supported by the prayer leader of the village mosque who, however, opted to stay away from the witness-box alongside the respondent himself. Similarly, certain discrepancies in the site plan were viewed to prosecution’s detriment without having been confronted to the witnesses during the trial. Unscathed survival of the witnesses was also 2 received with suspicion by the High Court. Generality of the above observations, notwithstanding, nonetheless, the High Court does not appear to have taken any exception to the ocular account furnished by the witnesses of locality in a small rural neighborhood, unanimously pointing their finger upon the respondent. We consider it expedient to grant leave to reappraise entire evidence with a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for Gul Rehman respondent through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar, executable through Station House Officer concerned within a fortnight. Judge Judge Peshawar, 12th July, 2021 Azmat/- ‘Not approved for reporting’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.46-P of 2016 (Against the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar passed in Cr. R. No.66-P/2015 with Cr. Misc. No.189-P/2016) Muhammad Iltaf Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus Basheer and others …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Muhammad Tariq Hoti, ASC Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, AOR For the State: Mr. Shumayl Butt, Advocate General KP Malik Akhtar Hussain, Addl. Advocate General KP Mr. Aamir Javed, Addl. Attorney General for Pakistan. Date of hearing: 26.07.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aggrieved by certain imputations, viewed as calculatedly malignant, the petitioner instituted a criminal complaint under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.), directly in the Court of Session at Mardan against his accusers, respondents herein; they were summoned pursuant to the process of the Court to face indictment vide order dated 18.05.2015, challenged on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge could not have issued the process without taking cognizance in derogation to the procedure provided under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (the Code). The argument weighed with a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court and the process was quashed in pursuance thereto vide impugned judgment dated 20.04.2016, being assailed herein. Respondents alongside the Attorney Criminal Petition No.46-P/2016 2 General for Pakistan and Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were sent for, latter to assist the Court. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the wake of addition of section 502-A in the P.P.C., introduced by Act IX of 2004, there was no embargo left in the field for the Court of Session, standing in impediment to assumption of cognizance by itself for offences enumerated under Chapter XXI thereof as the said amendment expressly excluded the conventional magisterial route; he has laid emphasis on the non-obstante clause inserted in section 502-A, to argue that it expressly left out application of the Code. Prominent amongst his various submissions and references was the argument that the legislature, in its wisdom and competence, devised a special procedure for expeditious disposal of cases of defamation within a stipulated timeframe and, thus, the Court of Session was consciously empowered to take direct cognizance in order to obviate procedural delays, a purpose that can be clearly ‘Read Down’ without possibility of error; he was supported by the Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa who addressed on Court call. Learned counsel for the respondents, contrarily, defended the impugned judgment on the ground that non-obstante clause merely envisaged prosecution of the offence by a Court of Session, notwithstanding the quantum of sentence provided therefor and, thus, it could not be construed to have swept away the entire mechanism provided under the Code as embargo under section 193 of the Code expressly stood in impediment thereto; he has referred to section 203-A, B and C of the Code to argue that expression “taking of cognizance” of designated offences, “in the court of competent jurisdiction” is conspicuously missing in section 502-A of the P.P.C. to unambiguously suggest that the complaint was to have been routed through the regular procedure; he has been supported by the Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Section 193 of the Code places a complete and clear bar on taking of cognizance of any offence by the Court of Session in its original jurisdiction unless the case is sent up by a Magistrate under subsection 2 of section 190 of the Code. It is petitioner’s case that introduction of section 502-A inserted through the Defamation (Amendment Act IX) of 2004 in the P.P.C. circumvents the supra bar Criminal Petition No.46-P/2016 3 and a complaint for prosecution of defamation under section 500 of the P.P.C can be directly instituted in the Court of Session for decision within the stipulated period of ninety days; the argument is built on the non-obstante clause that reads as under: “502-A. Trial of offences under this chapter.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), the Court of Session shall have the jurisdiction to try an offence under this Chapter and decide it within a period of ninety days.” A non-obstante clause in a Statute is a potent legislative tool often employed, essentially to achieve a limited/specific statutory purpose, nonetheless, the concomitant overriding effect is purpose specific without impinging upon the structural integrity of the Statute; it merely presents a restricted deviation or departure without disturbing the overall functionality of the Statute. Offence under section 500 of the P.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment that may possibly extend to a period of 5 years and as such, triable by a Magistrate. The legislature in its wisdom desired an expeditious trial of the offence with right of appeal going to the High Court and this appears to be the dominant purpose for insertion of section 502A in the P.P.C. with no bearings upon the procedure, otherwise provided for the institution of a complaint; aforesaid construction is supported by the law declared by this Court in the cases reported as Syed Azhar Hussain Shah and another Vs. The State and others (2019 S C M R 537), Major ((Retd.) Barkat Ali and others Versus Qaim Din and others (2006 S C M R 562), Habibul Wahab-el-Kheiri Vs. Ch. Saeed Ahmad (1979 S C M R 545), Rahim Dad Vs. The State and another (1980 P Cr. L J 500), Riffat Hayat Vs. Judge Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore and another (1994 SCMR 2177), JIK Industries Limited and Ors. Vs. Amarlal Versus Jumani and Ors. (AIR 2012 SC 1079), Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (AIR1971 SC 530), Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 94, Balveer Singh and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Ors. (AIR 2016 SC 2266), P.C. Gulati Vs.Lajya Ram Kapur and Ors (AIR 1966 SC 595) and Basdeo and Ors. Vs. Emperor (AIR 1945 All 340). Criminal Petition No.46-P/2016 4 The High Court though well within the remit of law, nonetheless, should have preferred to return the complaint for its proper institution, therefore, the complainant/respondent, successive failures, notwithstanding, may still present his complaint before the Area Magistrate for its onward transmission to the Court of Session for redressal of grievance complained, if so advised. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Announced in open Court on 16.11.2021 at Islamabad Approved for Reporting Azmat/* Judge

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.460 OF 2021 (Against the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. Misc. No.246- B/2021) Noor Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Hifza Ibrar Bukhari, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: N.R. Date of hearing: 24.05.2021. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- The petitioner was surprised by a police contingent on 05.12.2020 within the precincts of Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi with 1320 grams of cannabis, concealed in a shopping bag; he was declined bail throughout, lastly by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench vide impugned order dated 23.02.2021; he seeks leave to appeal therefrom. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Red-handed with seizure of considerable quantity of the contraband squarely brings petitioner’s case within the remit of ‘Prohibition, contemplated by section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; his claim of false implication is an issue that cannot be attended without going beyond the barriers of tentative assessment, an exercise prohibited by law. On our own analysis of the record, view concurrently taken by the courts below is not open to any legitimate exception. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 24th May, 2021 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial Mr. Justice Faisal Arab Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.464 of 2020 (Against impugned judgment dated 23.4.2020 passed by Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr.M.(BA) No.843-P/2020) Muhammad Hayat …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Ms. Aysha Tasneem, ASC along with Raza Raban SI, Peshawar For the Complainant: Mr. Hasnain Ali, ASC Date of hearing: 05.06.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aurangezb along with his nephew Intikhab Alam was asleep on 5.2.2020 in his Hujjra situated within the precincts of Police Station Mithra, Peshawar, when at 10:00 p.m. they were surprised by armed intruders; they ostensibly demanded to search the premises so as to apprehend the hiding Talbans and seize their arms; they subdued the inmates including the children after tying them in different rooms and left the scene with the valuables comprising cash, gold ornaments and a vehicle. The complainant extricated himself and lodged report with the police at 10:00 a.m. As the investigation progressed, the petitioner was arrested alongside co-accused; he was identified by the witnesses in a test identification parade; pursuant to disclosure, he led to the recovery of some of the robbed articles. Criminal Petition No.464 of 2020 2 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Alleged discrepancy in the actual number of assailants, stressed at inordinate length is an issue that cannot be settled within the restricted scope of tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating agency. Similarly, flaws attributed to the test identification parade cannot be attended without undertaking a journey into prohibited territory. These are the issues, essentially to be determined by the trial Court, on the strength of evidence, yet to be recorded. In the absence of any apparent motive, suggestive of malice, identification of the accused coupled with recovery of the looted articles from within the safety of a dwelling at an odd hour of night to the horrors of the inmates that included children and women, we do not feel persuaded in our discretion to allow the request. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 5th June, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.47-P/2017 (Against the judgment dated 08.9.2017 of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar passed in Cr.A. No.338-P/2016) Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd through its G.M. Hayatabad Peshawar …Petitioner(s) Versus M/s Saif Textile Mills Ltd. 3rd Floor Kalsoom Plaza, 2020, Blue Area, Islamabad, Industrial Estate Gadoon Amazai, District Swabi …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Asad Jan, ASC For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shahid Qayyum Khattak, ASC Mr. Tasleem Hussain, AOR Date of hearing: 30.6.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Respondent is a textile unit, set up in Gadoon Amazai, incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 with the name and style of M/s Saif Textile Mills Ltd, powered on natural gas supplied by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) through Meter No.74058, initially installed at the premises on 27.11.2009. The gas company noted a substantial shortfall in the readings recorded by the meter and replaced it with a new one on 24.01.2010. Loss to the exchequer was estimated as Rs.11.68 million. It is in this backdrop that the respondent arraying, amongst others Federation of Pakistan along with Gas & Regulatory Authority, SNGPL and Executive Engineer, SNGPL filed W.P. No.3433 of 2011 in the Peshawar High Court, seeking multiple declarations and prayers; the High Court, however, vide order dated 20.12.2011 transmitted the writ petition to the District & Sessions Judge/Tribunal Protection Consumer Interest Peshawar to redress respondent’s grievance; it also restrained the department from disconnecting the gas connection. The Sessions Judge transferred the complaint to the Consumer Court constituted under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997 (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No.VI of 1997), “the Act”. The complaint was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2015, however, the High Court, vide order dated 3.7.2015, once again remanded it for decision afresh with results no different than earlier vide order dated 21.04.2016, impugned Criminal Petition No.47-P/2011 2 by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 8.9.2017 accepted the appeal in the following terms:- “For the reasons discussed above, I while accepting this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Consumer Court dated 21.04.2016 and allowed the complaint” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no occasion for the High Court, in the first place, to transmit the Constitution petition involving factual controversies requiring technical verification for determination to the Consumer Court and, thus, on each occasion the Consumer Court rightly dismissed the complaint. It is next argued that the Act is a Statute devised to protect legitimate rights of a consumer to have best value for his money and for that places specified obligations upon the manufacturer as is evident from its preamble; the respondent is not a consumer nor the petitioner a manufacturer within the contemplation of section 2(c) and 2(j) of the Act and, thus, the High Court had misdirected itself to refer the issue to the Court, an error rectified through successive dismissals leaving no space for the High Court to allow the complaint by putting at peril a colossal amount due to the public exchequer, concluded the learned counsel. 3. Contentions raised need consideration; leave, inter alia, is granted to the petitioner. Mr. Shahid Qayyum Khattak, ASC has entered appearance to defend the impugned order. Office is directed to prepare the paper book with parties, at liberty to place the additional documents, if any. Since, a short matter involving public exchequer is involved, the office shall cause fixation of the appeal with all convenient dispatch. Cr.M.A. No.61-P/2017 4. Operation of the impugned judgment shall be held in abeyance. Judge Judge Peshawar, the 30th June, 2021 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN ( Appellate Jurisdiction ) Present: Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi CRIMINAL PETITION NO.475 OF 2022 (On appeal against the order dated 15.04.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Crl. Misc. No.11519-B of 2022) Amir Faraz … … Petitioner Versus The State … … Respondent For the appellant : Mian Pervaz Hussain, ASC (via video link from Lahore) Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, AOR For the State : Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl. PG Pb (via video link from Lahore) For respondent No.2 : Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani, ASC Date of hearing : 08.12.2022 JUDGMENT SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.- Through this Criminal Petition, Amir Faraz complainant of case FIR No.201/2021, dated 15.05.2021, registered at Police Station City Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura, impugns the order dated 15.04.2022, through which post arrest bail was granted to respondent No.2-Nadeem Zulf who is accused in the above said FIR. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that within one hour and twenty minutes of the occurrence, the matter was reported to the police and in the said prompt FIR it was specifically mentioned that respondent Nadeem Zulf fired with his pistol hitting Naseem Zulf deceased on right side of his forehead, who succumbed to the said injury; that Nadeem Zulf alongwith others committed murder of his two brothers (Naseem Zulf and Waseem Zulf) when they were present in the land of Naseem Zulf, the brother-in-law of the complainant; that it is an occurrence Crl.P.475/2022 2 wherein two brothers have been done to death by their own brother Nadeem Zulf and others; that the statements of the eye witnesses are available on record confirming the prosecution version mentioned in the FIR; that the High Court while granting bail to the respondent has relied upon the opinion of the second Investigating Officer which was based upon a single case Diary dated 22.09.2021, when Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq made statements that, when they were passing near the place of occurrence, they saw the accused and complainant party quarreling with each other; that said Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq earlier appeared before the Investigating Officer, but after about four months they took another stance before the second Investigating Officer and on their assertion the said Investigating Officer concluded that although the respondent was present there but he was empty handed; that said Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq neither made witnesses in this case nor their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) were recorded and even their names were not mentioned in the report under section 173 of the Code; that according to the second Investigating Officer, the complainant party was aggressor but surprisingly no one from the respondent’s side received even a single scratch but on the other hand, two persons lost their lives from the side of the complainant party; that no cross-case was ever got registered by the respondent’s side against the complainant party regarding their alleged aggression; that respondent after getting bail is misusing the concession of bail by hampering the trial as on 18.03.2022 the charge was framed and thereafter, on numerous dates of hearing, the witnesses had appeared but the defence counsel avoided again and again by requesting for adjournment; that, on the other hand, the respondent is pressurizing his own family members including the complainant not to pursue the case against him; that the misuse of concession of bail can be considered from this fact that on 18.07.2022, statements of two witnesses were recorded but on the request of the defence counsel the cross-examination was reserved and they have not been cross-examined till now. Crl.P.475/2022 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset, relied upon the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. the State (PLD 2018 SC 595) and contends that it is the duty of the Investigation Officer to dig out the truth which was done in this case; that it was the case of Hanan Zulf son of Nadeem Zulf that he actually committed murder of both the deceased when they made aggression upon respondent Nadeem Zulf; that from the place of occurrence six crime empties were recovered and found wedded with the pistol which was recovered from Hanan Zulf; that bail was granted by a competent Court and cannot be cancelled until the order is perverse, patently illegal and factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice which is lacking in this case; that as trial has commenced, bail should not be cancelled. Besides Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) the learned counsel has relied upon certain other judgment in the cases of Muhammad Sharif vs. Shafqat Hussain alias Shaukat etc (1999 SCMR 338), Sami Ullah and another vs. Laiq Zada and another (2020 SCMR 1115), Sidra Abbas vs. the State and another (2020 SCMR 2089) and Muhammad Shoaib vs. the State and another (2022 SCMR 326). Lastly contends that the co-accused Hasan Iqbal who fired upon the other deceased namely Waseem Zulf hitting on his right arm, was granted bail by the High Court while taking into consideration his role and opinion of the Police Officer and case of the respondent is at par with the case of Hasan Iqbal, co-accused 4. Learned Addl. PG., while supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that commencement of trial is not a hurdle when bail granting order is perverse and factually incorrect, as in the present case, the impugned order is based upon an opinion of a Police Officer which is not backed by strong material and data; that bail was granted to the respondent when charge had already been framed and if bail can be granted when trial had already been commenced, the same can be cancelled on the same principle; that due to the dispute over the inherited property, the respondent committed murder of his two real brothers and in that eventuality, he was not entitled to concession of bail, especially when the subsequent investigation Crl.P.475/2022 4 was not based on solid material. Further contends that although six empties were recovered from the place of occurrence and the same were found to have been fired from the weapon recovered from Hanan Zulf but said recovery is just a corroborative piece of evidence and even the negative report of FSL being a corroborative piece of evidence cannot be considered at the time of grant or refusal of a bail. On the other hand, the deceased Waseem Zulf received the injuries having different dimensions and the injury attributed to the respondent on the person of Naseem Zulf was totally of different dimension than the injuries on the person of Waseem Zulf, indicating that different weapons had been used in the occurrence. 5. Heard, perused the record. Although two persons lost their lives but complainant thereafter approached the Police while going to the Police Station and lodged the report within one hour and twenty minutes of the occurrence, when the Police Station was at a distance of 2½ kilometers and while lodging the FIR, he categorically attributed fatal injury on the head of Naseem Zulf deceased, to respondent Nadeem Zulf. He is the sole accused who caused solitary fatal firearm injury with pistol to Naseem Zulf deceased, whereas the remaining accused fired upon other deceased i.e. Waseem Zulf. A specific pistol shot injury is attributed to respondent Nadeem Zulf which got full support from the medical evidence and the injury attributed to him was sufficient to cause death of the said deceased. The witnesses mentioned in the FIR, got recorded their statements on the same day under section 161 of the Code and supported the version put forward by the complainant in the FIR. 6. In the earlier investigation the respondent was found guilty but subsequently the Investigation was conducted by SHO/Investigating Officer who, after recording the statements of Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq on 22.9.2021, opined that although the respondent was present at the place of occurrence but he was empty handed. According to learned Addl. PG., the three witnesses even appeared before the earlier Investigating Officer but they again appeared before the second Investigating Officer after more than four months and Crl.P.475/2022 5 stated that they saw both the parties quarreling. We have observed that while relying upon their assertion, the Investigating Officer opined as mentioned above. No independent statement of Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq under section 161 of the Code, was recorded. They were not mentioned in the report under section 173 of the Code as PWs in this case. Except the above mentioned statement of these witnesses, no other material was collected by the second Investigating Officer who opined that it was the complainant party who was aggressor. According to the Investigating Officer Hanan Zulf, one of the accused, claimed that he had committed the murder of these persons. Although the second Investigating Officer opined that complainant party was aggressor but surprisingly, nobody from the respondent side received even a single scratch. The Investigating Officer did not make effort to get recorded the statement of Hanan Zulf under section 164 of the Code, so a bald inadmissible statement of co- accused that too, before the police, was taken into consideration for forming such opinion. No doubt, the opinion of the Investigating Officer has some persuasive value, if the same is based upon a strong and concrete material which is lacking in the present case. 7. We have also observed that Nadeem Zulf respondent, alongwith two co-accused earlier filed petition for protective pre- arrest bail before the Lahore High Court and in the said petition, it is nowhere asserted that complainant party was aggressor nor any ground regarding cross-version, was agitated, meaning thereby that at that time, this plea was not taken by the respondent and was subsequently agitated, due to which the subsequent Investigating Officer formed the said opinion and due to this circumstance his opinion has no persuasive value at the stage of bail and it would be the trial Court which after recording the evidence will appreciate this aspect of the case. As far as the cases referred by the learned counsel regarding opinion of the Investigating Officer is concerned, the facts of Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) are different because in the present case the respondent side did not make any effort to lodge any report regarding the aggression of the complainant side and even Crl.P.475/2022 6 any private complaint was never filed by the respondent side against the complainant party. We have also observed that in Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) it was observed that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to dig out the truth but the said exercise should be based upon concrete admissible material and not a bald opinion, and Courts are not bound to accept the bald opinion of any Investigating Officer which is not based upon a reasonable, plausible and strong material. Even otherwise, Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) has different facts and was decided on different proposition i.e. regarding registration of second or subsequent FIR. 8. It is settled that in criminal matters, each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injury on the head of the deceased and the said injury was spelt out from the medical evidence. He was found involved in the commission of offence in the first investigation and the ipse dixit of the second Investigating Officer, especially in the above mentioned circumstances, had no persuasive value. Although learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon certain judgments and even the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on certain judgments qua opinion of the Investigating Officer but we observe that in all the said judgments, the basic thing, which has to be considered by the Court, is whether the said opinion is based upon cogent and concrete material. In the absence of any material/data no credit can be given to such ipse dixit of the Police Officer. If the plea i.e. ipse dixit of the police, on the basis of which the respondent has been released on bail is accepted, the same would amount to discredit the version of the eye witnesses at this initial stage of the case which of course is not permissible in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The practice adopted by the learned High Court through the impugned order is not appreciable. The High Court while granting bail to the respondent has ignored the relevant material indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime and took into account irrelevant material which had no nexus to the question of grant of bail to the accused. It is settled law that bail granting order could be cancelled if the same was perverse. An order which is, inter-alia, Crl.P.475/2022 7 entirely against the weight of the evidence on record, by ignoring material evidence on record indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the commission of crime, is always considered as a perverse order, which is in present case as material evidence on the record brought by prosecution promptly, was not given any weight by the High Court and a perverse order was passed upon a baled opinion of second Investigating Officer. 9. So for principle of rule of consistency is concerned, although Hasan Iqbal was granted post arrest bail by the High Court vide order dated 18.01.2022 but we observed that he was attributed a fire shot, hitting on right arm of Waseem Zulf another deceased but said injury was not fatal and was not the cause of death. In that eventuality, learned counsel for the respondent could not satisfy our query as to how respondent’s case is at par with Hasan Iqbal because the fire shot attributed to the present respondent, on the head of Naseem Zulf, was the cause of death. So far argument of the learned counsel for respondent that six empties recovered from the place of occurrence were found to have been fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from Hanan Zulf, cannot be considered at this stage as the same at the most could be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence but in the present case there is substantive ocular account, whose names are mentioned in the FIR. Likewise, non-recovery of weapon from the respondent is not sufficient for not cancelling the bail because it is always considered as a corroborative piece of evidence. It is settled principle of law that corroboratory piece of evidence, if missing, cannot discard the ocular account recorded on the day of occurrence, at bail stage. 10. So far argument of the learned counsel that the trial has commenced, we observed that the charged was framed on 18.03.2022 but the High Court granted bail to respondent on 15.4.2022 when trial had already been commenced and if bail can be granted after the commencement of trial, the same can be cancelled even after the commencement of trial, especially when bail granting order is perverse and based upon ipse dixit of Police, which is not based upon strong material or data. Of course, bail Crl.P.475/2022 8 can be cancelled if bail granting order is erroneous and resulted into miscarriage of justice, as done in this case. 11. It is also a circumstance that after getting bail, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is misusing the same by hampering the trial as on numerous dates of hearing the prosecution witnesses appeared before the Court but their statements were not recorded on the request of defence counsel. Even on 18.07.2022, statements of two prosecution witnesses were recorded but their cross-examination was reserved on the request of the defence counsel and subsequently, till date, the said witnesses have not been cross-examined. This aspect of the case is also indicative of the fact that the bail is being mis-used by hampering the trial. Even otherwise, no hard and fast rule can be laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely for the reason that the trial has commenced or is likely to commence because every case is to be examined in the light of its own facts, and the crucial question that arises for determination would be as to whether a person is entitled to grant of bail under the provision of section 497 Cr.P.C. which, as already observed, the respondent was not entitled to, especially, when there is sufficient material available against him in the shape of ocular account as well as the medical evidence and the circumstance that he alongwith other accused committed the murder of his two real brothers. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, to this effect, having different facts and circumstances, could not be applied in this case. 12. All the above mentioned circumstances have been ignored by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent, record to that extent has not been examined by the High Court and same order can be considered as perverse, because the material collected by the first Investigating Officer, on the day first, was totally ignored by the High Court while granting bail in such a double murder case. 13. Due to the above mentioned reasons, while converting this petition into an appeal the same is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the bail granted to Crl.P.475/2022 9 the respondent Nadeem Zulf is hereby cancelled/recalled. The above observations are tentative in nature and will have no bearing upon subsequent proceedings during trial as the trial Court is required to decide the case on its own merits and the evidence recorded during the trial, without being influenced by this order. These are the reasons of our short order dated 08.12.2022, which is reproduced as under : “For reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Bail already granted to the respondent is hereby recalled.” Judge Judge Judge Islamabad 09.01.2023 M.Saeed/* APPROVED FOR REPORTING. Judge Crl.P.475/2022 10 * Even otherwise, no hard and fast rule can be laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely for the reason that the trial has commenced or is likely to commence because every case is to be examined in the light of its own facts, and the crucial question that arises for determination would be as to whether a person is entitled to grant of bail under the provision of section 497 Cr.P.C. which, as already observed, the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail especially when there is sufficient material available against him in the shape of ocular account as well as the medical evidence and the circumstance that he alongwith other accused committed the murder of his two real brothers. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, having different facts and circumstances could not be relied upon in this case. ** It is settled that in criminal matters, each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically nominated for causing firearm injury on the head of the deceased and the said injury was spelt out from the medical evidence. He was found involved in the commission of offence in the first investigation and the ipse dixit of the investigating officer, especially in the above mentioned circumstances, had no persuasive value. Although learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon certain judgments and even the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on certain judgments qua opinion of the investigating officer but we observe that in all the said judgments, the basic thing, which has to be considered by the Court, is whether the said opinion is based upon cogent and concrete material. In the absence of any material/data no credit can be given to such ipse dixit of the police officer. If the plea i.e. ipse dixit of the police, on the basis of which the respondent has been released on bail is accepted, the same would amount to discredit the version of the eye witnesses at this initial stage of the case which of course is not permissible in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The practice adopted by the learned High Court through the impugned order is not appreciable. The High Court while granting bail to the respondent has ignored the relevant material indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime and took into account irrelevant material which had no nexus to the question of grant of bail to the accused. It is settled law that bail granting order could be cancelled if the same was perverse. A perverse order was defined as an order which was, inter-alia, entirely against the weight of the evidence on record, by ignoring material evidence on record indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the respondent in the commission of crime. Due to the above mentioned reasons, while converting this petition into an appeal, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the bail granted to the respondent is hereby recalled. These are the reasons of our short order dated 08.12.2022 which is reproduced as under : “For reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Bail already granted to the respondent is hereby recalled.”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED Criminal Petition No.48-P/2015 (Against the judgment dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Peshawar High Court Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat in Crl. Appeal No.182/2014) Muhammad Daud and others …Petitioners Versus Syed Abid Ali and another ..Respondents For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Naveed Akhtar, ASC For the Respondent(s): Mr. Muhammad Inaam Yousfzai, Addl. A.G. K.P. Date of hearing: 12.7.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J-. A shoot out within the precincts of Jehanzaib College Saidu Sharif Swat resulted into multiple casualties, each youthful; Muhammad Fawad (PW-6), Zafar Ali (PW-9) survived the life of fire, however, Muhammad Musa and Hashim Khan succumbed to their wounds. The petitioner along with Nasir, since proclaimed offender, was arrayed as the culprits in the crime report lodged by Muhammad Daud Khan (PW-18); during the trial, he was joined by other witnesses. Prosecution failed at the first tier as a learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from the charge vide judgment dated 14.6.2014; appeal against acquittal met with no better fate vide impugned judgment dated 19.2.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed on the ground that both the courts, in concurrence, ran into grievous error by relying upon reticent deposition by the injured witnesses, notwithstanding, that other eye witnesses present at the spot categorically named the respondent as well as the proclaimed offender, both spearheading the assault in a unison inside an educational premises. Forensic report confirming use of two different weapons with three empties wedding one weapon left at the spot, was a circumstance that heavily reflected upon respondent’s culpability, next argued the learned counsel. 2 2. We have examined the record to find that though both the injured witnesses categorically confirmed receipt of fire shot injuries at the stated venue and point of time in the backdrop, suggested in the crime report, however, given their positions in the opposite direction in the crowded canteen, they had not visually seen the respondents, taking on the deceased, a shortcoming seemingly made up by other witnesses present at the spot. In the totality of circumstances and having regard to the absconsion of one of the assailants, we consider it expedient to grant leave so as to reappraise entire evidence with a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for Abid Ali through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, executable through Station House Officer concerned, within a fortnight. Judge Judge Peshawar, 12th July, 2021 Azmat/- ‘Not approved for reporting’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, HCJ MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA Criminal Petition No.488 of 2015 (Against the order dated 5.6.2015 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No.5654-B of 2015) Zaigham Ashraf … Petitioner(s) Versus The State, etc. … Respondent(s) For the petitioner(s): Ms. Bushra Qamar, ASC Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Addl. PG Mr. M. Hanif, SI, P.S. Malakwal. For the complainant: Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, ASC Date of hearing: 19.8.2015 JUDGMENT Dost Muhammad Khan, J-. The petitioner, Zaigham Ashraf, is seeking leave against the order of the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, refusing him grant of bail in Crime No.98 dated 11.03.2014, registered for offences u/Ss.302, 324, 148, 149 and sections 337-F(iii), 120-B and 109 PPC, by PS Malakwal, District Mandi Bahauddin. 2. Mst. Kiran Tanveer w/o Faiz Miran, while reporting the crime alleged that, deceased Mst. Ambreen, her younger sister, was married to Shahid Imran. The couple was blessed with three male children. The husband of the deceased died on 20.10.2012, however, Crl.P..488/2015 2 in his lifetime he had transferred bungalow No.D-5, Block-408, in Defence, Lahore, another under-construction house at Gojra and seven acres of land to Mst. Ambreen, which caused serious annoyance to the accused party. After the death of her husband, the deceased and her children were ousted from the house by the accused, who also forcibly occupied the above properties, besides, misappropriating dowry articles and gold ornaments of the deceased. To that effect a civil suit was filed by the deceased which was pending disposal in the Civil Court, at Malakwal. 3. After attending the hearing of the case, on 11.03.2014, the complainant along with the deceased, followed by the two witnesses on motorbike, left for home, however, they were intercepted by the accused, namely, (i) Muhammad Ashraf (ii) Kamran Ashraf (iii) Fakhar Ashraf (iv) Imran Ashraf (v) Zaigham Ashraf (petitioner) (vi) Mudassar @ Kalu and three unknown persons, who were duly armed with Kalashnikov rifles. Accused Kamran Ashraf, Fakhar Ashraf and Zaigham Ashraf made rapid firing with their Kalashnikov rifles at Mst. Ambreen who got injured and died, while with the fire shots of Mudassar @ Kalu, Khurram Ashraf and Fakhar Ashraf, Altaf Hussain (PW) was hit and got injured. The present petitioner also effectively fired at Altaf, hitting him on his knee-joint, whereafter all the accused fled away. The injured, Altaf Hussain, also succumbed to the injuries later. We have heard the learned ASC for the petitioner, learned Additional P.G. for the State as well as the learned ASC for the complainant and have perused the record. 4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer discovered that the present petitioner Zaigham Ashraf, was lodged in Abbottabad Prison of KPK in crimes under Articles 3 and 4 of the Crl.P..488/2015 3 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, PS Cantt., Abbottabad and he was in the Prison on the date and time of the present tragedy and that, he was released from the Prison on 13.03.2014. The Investigating Officer, therefore, verified the record of the Prison and made inquiries from the Prison authorities, as a result he charged the present petitioner for crimes u/Ss. 109 and 120-B PPC for the abetment of the crime and hatching conspiracy with the co-accused to commit the crime. 5. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet, filed in the Trial Court contained S.109 and 120-B PPC and in this way the Prosecution itself has relied upon the plea of alibi of the petitioner and he has been implicated for abetment of the crime and offence of conspiracy, contradicting the stance of the complainant that the petitioner was present on the spot and participated in the crime. 6. There is no hard and fast rule that plea of alibi shall not be considered at bail stage because while granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, the Court is not required to see and consider the materials/evidence, collected in favour of the Prosecution but also to give proper attention to the defence plea, taken by an accused person. 7. In the case of Khalid Javed Gillan v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 256), broader principles were laid down with regard to accepting the plea of alibi of accused in that case, making tentative assessment of the materials brought on record and it was held as follows:- “S.497— Bail— Assessment of evidence—Court, in matters of bail, to go by its assessment of “the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case— Prosecution though may prove a Crl.P..488/2015 4 prosecution witness to be man of unimpeachable character for purpose of bail, however, hostile relationship between parties circumstances not irrelevant to Court’s assessment of material produced before it— Petitioner’s plea of alibi supported by affidavit of a disinterested person, a medical practitioner of high repute, not having any ostensible connection with petitioner—Bail absence of proof of Doctor’s evidence being not fit to be relied upon, held, could not be properly refused—Impugned order being based on misreading of S.497, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.” When the bail is ordinarily granted to an accused person, who is charged for raising ‘Lalkara’ i.e. abetting the crime then, the case of the accused who is not present on the spot and is charged for abetment and conspiracy, is certainly placed on better pedestal for grant of bail in the absence of strong, cogent and tangible evidence/materials, collected by the Prosecution, during the course of investigation, connecting his neck with the crime in a reasonable manner. The record before us, on careful perusal, does not suggest any such evidence, having been brought on record. Therefore, the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner, is not only reasonably established at the moment but has also been acted upon and believed by the Prosecution and why he was charged for abetment u/Ss. 109 and 120- B PPC. 8. Similarly, in the case of Tariq Bashir v. State (PLD 1995 SC 34) it was held that:- “Grant or refusal of bail in cases punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for 10 years must be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case…Provisions of S.497 Crl.P.C. are not punitive in nature as regards offences punishable with death , or imprisonment for life, imprisonment for ten years, as there is no concept of punishment before judgment in law.” Crl.P..488/2015 5 The words/phrase contained in section 497 Cr.P.C. ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe is of high import and meaning, requiring the Prosecution to show to the Court of law that it is in possession of sufficient materials/evidence, constituting ‘Reasonable grounds’ that accused has committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497 Cr.P.C. To the contrary, the accused’s burden is not that much heavier like the Prosecution. He has only to show that the evidence/materials, collected by the Prosecution or/and the defence plea taken by him create reasonable doubts/suspicion in the Prosecution case and he is entitled to avail the benefit of it. True that Court of law is required to make only tentative assessment of materials, placed on record by the Prosecution and no definite opinion shall be formed, conducting a pre- trial inquiry or deeply appreciating the evidence on record because such exercise is not permissible at bail stage. 9. To curtail the liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore, the Judges shall apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively however, this exercise shall not to be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy and casual manner as that will defeat the ends of justice because if the accused charged, is ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation can be awarded to him for the long incarceration, as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the scheme of law on the subject do not provide for such arrangements to repair the loss, caused to an accused person, detaining him in Jail without just cause and reasonable ground. Therefore, extraordinary care and caution shall be exercised by the Judges in the course of granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, charged for offence(s), punishable with capital punishment. The Courts are equally required to make Crl.P..488/2015 6 tentative assessment with pure judicial approach of all the materials available on record, whether it goes in favour of the Prosecution or in favour of the defence before making a decision. 10. In the case of Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277) it was held that, “for purposes of bail, law not to be stretched in favour of prosecution—Benefit of doubt, if any arising, must go to accused even on bail stage”. Similar view was taken in the case of Manzoor v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81). These principles so laid down, are based on enunciation of law in interpreting the provision of section 497 Cr.P.C. and broader principle of justice. Till date, no departure or deviation has been made therefrom by this Court then, these are the principles of law and have binding effect and shall be construed as guiding principles by all the Courts in the matter of grant or refusal of bail. 11. In the instant case, as discussed above, the plea of alibi of the accused has not been disbelieved by the Prosecution rather it was accepted after due verification from the Prison Authorities and Record, and it was for this reason that the present petitioner was subsequently charged for crimes u/Ss. 109 and 120-B PPC. Thus, in this way, his presence from the crime spot at the time of commission of the present crime stands excluded. Keeping in view the two conflicting versions; one given by the complainant in the FIR and the other by the Investigating Agency based on documentary evidence with regard to the plea of alibi, the case of the present petitioner has become certainly one of further inquiry, falling within the ambit of sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C., where grant of bail becomes the right of accused and it is not a grace or concession, to be given by the Court. In the absence of any exceptional ground or reason, denial of bail in such a case would amount to exercise a discretion in a manner, not warranted by law and principle of justice. Crl.P..488/2015 7 12. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail in the light of the terms of our short order of even date, which is reproduced below:- “The petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.98 dated 11.3.2014, offence under Sections 302, 324, 148 and 149 PPC (Sections 337-F(iii), 120-B and 109 PPC were added later on), registered with P.S. Malakwal, District Mandi Bahauddin. 2. For reasons to be recorded, the petitioner is allowed bail on furnishing personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The trial Court shall comply with the directions of the High Court in respect of early disposal of the case”. Note: Needless to remark that the above assessment and observations, recorded by us are tentative in nature and the Trial Court has to decide the case of the petitioner on the basis of evidence, to be recorded at the trial. Chief Justice Judge Judge Islamabad, the 19th August, 2015 Nisar/’’ ‘Approved for reporting’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (AppellateJurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Crl. P. No.493 of 2021 (Against the judgment dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench in B.C.A. No.8-b OF 2021) Noor Aslam …Petitioner(s) Versus The State through P.G. and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Muhammad Waheed Anjum, ASC Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, AOR For the Respondent(s): Mian Shafaqat Jan, Addl. A.G. KP Date of hearing: 02.06.2021. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- The petitioner, accused in a case of murderous assault, was granted bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lakki Marwat vide order dated 29.1.2021; the concession was recalled by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Peshawar High Court at Bannu Bench vide impugned order dated 16.04.2021, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed for, primarily on the ground that in the absence of strong reasons there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with exercise of discretion to disturb an order, interlocutory in nature, particularly when the concession was not alleged to have been abused. According to the prosecution, on the eventful day i.e. 3.9.2019, the petitioner targeted Wali Ullah PW with his Kalashnikov in consequence whereof the latter sustained two bullet wounds on right epigastrium and left hand; a stray bullet hit a nearby transformer as well, in the backdrop of a dispute raging between the injured and the assailant; medico legal examination of even date, under a police docket, confirmed receipt of two entry wounds with a corresponding exit. After the incident, the petitioner stayed away from law for a considerable span of time. Crl. P. No.493 of 2021 2 2. Heard. 3. Argument that exceptionally strong grounds to justify cancellation of bail were not available with the High Court do not hold water in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case; complainant’s miraculous survival despite massive damage to the epigastrium region, confirmed by medical examination shortly after the assault, prima facie, attracted the mischief envisaged by section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and, thus, constituted “reasonable grounds” within the contemplation of section of 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, standing in impediment to release of an offender in the absence of any consideration calling for further probe. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also ran into error by conveniently describing petitioner’s disappearance from law as inconsequential, errors that have rightly been rectified by the learned Judge-in-Chamber. No doubt, grant of bail is a discretionary relief, however, exercise of discretion must be structured on sound judicial considerations, objectively deducible from the record of the case, particularly in cases punishable with imprisonment of ten years or above and, thus, grant of bail in disregard thereof by itself constitute a strong ground, justifiably calling for interference. Impugned order being within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 2nd June, 2021 Not approved for reporting GhulamRaza/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 495 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 50990- B/2020) Syeda Sumera Andleeb … Petitioner VERSUS The State and another … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Mazhar Iqbal Sindhu, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sindhu, Addl. P.G. Mr. Asif Raza, S.I. Date of Hearing: 07.06.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 266 dated 19.02.2020 under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Sattokatla, Lahore. The same relief was denied to her by the learned Trial Court as also by the High Court vide impugned order. 2. As per contents of the crime report, the petitioner and her husband took loan of rupees twenty million from the complainant in the presence of witnesses and towards the discharge of the liability, they gave the complainant a cheque amounting to Rs.50,00,000/-, which belonged to an account which was being jointly maintained by the petitioner and her husband. When the complainant did not get back the amount lent, he deposited the cheque in his account but the same was dishonored. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner has no concern with the case as she was just maintaining a joint account with her husband; that her husband, who is the main accused, is still at large; that she is a lady and has Criminal Petition No. 495/2021 2 to look after her three children, one of which is a minor girl aged about 5 years; that the only reason on which the cheque was dishonored was that the signatures over the cheque do not match with the specimen signature; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and that in the given circumstances, the petitioner deserves concession of bail in the interest of safe administration of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. He while supporting the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner contended that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases of similar nature, which shows that she is an habitual offender; that the petitioner along with her husband, in furtherance of their common intention, had intentionally deprived the complainant from a huge amount and as such she does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was maintaining a joint account with her husband, who is fugitive from law. The petitioner was taken into custody by the local police and she is behind the bars for the last 11 months without commencement of trial. The maximum punishment provided under the statute is 3 years. It has been surfaced on the record that the signature over the cheque mismatched with the specimen signature, which ultimately dishonored. So far as the argument of learned Law Officer that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases of similar nature is concerned, mere registration of criminal cases does not deprive a person from grant of bail, if he/she is otherwise entitled for the same relief. In Muhammad Rafiq Vs. State (1997 SCMR 412), this Court has candidly held that if an accused is involved in a number of cases, it is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. Same was the view of this Court in Moundar Vs. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934). Even otherwise, the petitioner is a woman folk and has three children to look after including a child of 5 years of age. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Criminal Petition No. 495/2021 3 6. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for bail. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees one million) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 7th of June, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR MR. JUSTICE SAWED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 499 OF 2019 Con appeal against the judgment dated 20022019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 393/2018) Tajamal Hussain Shah Petitioner VERSUS The State and another Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Talat Mehmood Zaidi, ASC Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR For the State: Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG Date of Hearing: 21042022 JUDGMENT SAYVED MAZAHAR All AKBAR NAQVI. J.- Petitioner was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jand, Attock pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 238 dated 07.11.2009 under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Jand, Attock, for committing murder of Muhammad Sajjad, son of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 06.04.2018 convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 300,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Sajjad or in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. In appeal, the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Trial Court, 2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the learned Trial Court reads as under:- CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 499 OF 2019 "2. As per brief facts narrated in complaint Exh.PL, complainant Muhammad Aslam son of Khan Mulakh (since deceased) was resident of Chapri, he was cultivator by profession. On 07.11.2009 at about 0430 p.m. complainant was present at Hussain! Chowk Chapri, while his son Muhammad Sajjad (since deceased) was proceeding to the shop of one Jabir for purchasing mobile card. Aashiq Hussain Shah son of Dildar Hussain Shah, Tajamal Hussain and Nazakat Hussain sons of Aashiq Hussain residents of Chapri were sitting on the chairs outside their Baitakh. After purchasing the card on returning back to home, when Muhammad Sajjad son of complainant reached near the house of Ashiq Hussain Shah, Nazakat Hussain son of Ashiq Hussain caught hold of Muhammad Sajjad while abusing, he started scuffling and called his father and brother that today Muhammad Sajjad beaten him. On which Tajamal Hussain son of Ashiq Hussain while abusing took out pistol 30 bore from his Dhab and made fire shot on Muhammad Sajjad, which landed on his chest, who became injured and fell down. On seeing the occurrence, complainant went forward to rescue his son, on which Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Dildar Hussain took out pistol and made fire shot on complainant, which landed on the right arm of complainant, Ashiq Hussain made 2d fire shot, which landed on the rib of right side; in the meanwhile, Ghulam Raza son of Jewan Khan, Zulfiqar Ahmad son of Bashir Ahrnad, Muhammad Razzaq son of Noor Khan alongwith other people while seeing the occurrence came and rescued them. Motive behind the occurrence is that quarrel had took place between Nazakat Hussain Shah and Wajid son of complainant prior, due to which Ashiq Hussain Shah along with his son, in furtherance of common intention, in order to take revenge of their disgrace injured them. Complainant alongwith his son Muhammad Sajjad were being taken to hospital in injured condition for medical treatment, on the way Muhammad Sajjad succumbed to the injuries." 3. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced as many as 19 witnesses and one CW. In his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled against him. However, he did not make his statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 in disproof of allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any evidence in his defence. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, which have not been properly dealt with by the courts below. Contends that the injury ascribed to the petitioner by the witnesses of the CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 499 OF 2019 3 ocular account was on chest of the deceased but the same is contradicted by the medical evidence. Contends that the plea of alibi of the petitioner was verified by the Investigating Officer but the same has not been given any credence. Contends that the prosecution has to prove its case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to prove its case. Contends that the reasons given by the learned courts below to sustain conviction of the petitioner are speculative and artificial in nature and resulted into miscarriage of justice, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of ocular version duly supported by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. He contends that any minor discrepancy in the prosecution evidence does not entitle the petitioner for acquittal Lastly contends that the petitioner remained absconder for ten years, which clearly indicates that he was fully involved in the commission of the crime, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the evidence available on record. The ocular account in this case is furnished by Zulfiqar Ahmed (PW-18) and Muhammad Daraz (PW-19). According to these PWs of the ocular account, the petitioner while armed with .30 bore pistol made a straight fire shot on Muhammad Sajjad, deceased, which landed on his chest, due to which he fell down and ultimately succumbed to the injury. However, this stance is contradicted by the medical evidence. According to Dr. Raheem Khan (PW-15), who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased Muhammad Sajjad, the injury on the chest, just above the nipple of the deceased, was an exit wound and the margins of the wound were black whereas the entry wound was on the back of the deceased i.e. at thoracic spine. The blackening around the wound shows that the fire shot would have been made from a close range but according CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 49$ OF 2019 4 to the site plan, the petitioner was shown standing at a distance of 18 steps away from the deceased. This major discrepancy raises serious doubts on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses of the ocular account. It was petitioner's stance that on the fateful day and time, he was not present at the place of occurrence and was visiting his cousin, who was posted at 62 signal Battalion Misrial Road, Rawalpindi and in-fact the deceased alongwith 25/30 persons attacked upon his house while armed with lethal weapons and beat his father. This plea of alibi of the petitioner was inquired into by the Investigating Officer i.e. Mehmood Khan, SI (PW- 17), who after thorough investigation found the same to be true. The 10. also got a verification letter dated 2.02.2017 issued by the Commanding Officer of 62 Battalion, which was placed on record. In support of this assertion, Havaldar Tamraiz Khan, 62 Signal Battalion appeared as DW-7 and stated on oath that on the fateful day and time, the petitioner was physically present at 62 signal Battalion. This plea of alibi finds support from record produced by DW-7. The pistol .30 bore allegedly recovered on the pointation of the petitioner was transmitted to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency but the matching report of the same with crime empties recovered from the spot was negative, therefore, the recovery of pistol becomes inconsequential. According to the prosecution the motive of the occurrence was previous quarrel between co-accused Nazakat Hussain Shah (tried separately) and Wajid, son of the complainant. However, the prosecution failed to produce the said Wajid in order to prove the motive part, therefore, it can safely be concluded that prosecution could not prove the motive part of the story. So far as the argument of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence, which cannot be made basis for conviction, rather it is the prosecution who has to prove its case independently without any reasonable shadow of doubt. In Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PU 1995 SC 477) this Court has held that mere absconsion cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for as disappearance of a person after the occurrence is but natural if he is involved in a murder case rightly or wrongly. In these CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 49P OF 2019 5 circumstances, a doubt in the prosecution case has arisen, benefit of which must be given to the petitioner. It is a settled law that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. 7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail forthwith unless detained/required in any other case. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date. Islamabad. the 21" of April, 2022 Approved For Reporting I (,. Itid till'

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No. 50-Q of 2017 (Against the judgment dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Balochistan High Court, Quetta in Crl. Appeal No.337/2016) Muhammad Ashraf …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Chishti, ASC For the State: Mr. Wallayat Hussain, Addl. Prosecutor General Balochistan Date of hearing: 13.10.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Mehboob Ali, 35, was shot dead during the wee hours of 21.6.2015, while asleep as a guest in the house of his brother Abdul Karim (PW-5), located within the precincts of Police Station Levies Dashat, Mastung. Incident was reported by his sister Zarnaz (PW-1), a resident in the neighbourhood; she accused the petitioner alongside Dur Khan, Qadir Bukhsh, Badal Khan, Haji Khan and Muhammad Yousaf, away from the law till date, for the murder in the backdrop of a previous dispute. Spot inspection includes seizure of blood as well as 18 casings of Kalashnikov. Autopsy report confirmed multiple entrance wounds on the forehead with corresponding exits, cumulatively leading to the death. The petitioner was alone to contest indictment before the learned Sessions Judge Mastung; vide Criminal Petition No.50-Q of 2017 2 judgment dated 08.10.2016 he was convicted under sections 302, 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and seven years RI, respectively, with a direction to pay compensation as well as fine, upheld by the High Court of Balochistan vide impugned judgment dated 19.06.2017, albeit with a direction for concurrent commutation of sentences, pre- trial period inclusive. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased was done to death under mysterious circumstances in an unseen occurrence, noticed subsequently and reported through the witnesses, stage-managed after consultations; that despite his having endured the period of physical remand, no recovery was effected from the petitioner, a circumstance in itself, vindicating his position. Occurrence being a night affair, reported after inordinate delay, the question of assailants’ identity is looming large on the scene, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. The prosecution has primarily relied upon ocular account furnished by Mst. Naz Malik (PW-3), Abdul Fatah (PW-4) and Abdul Karim (PW-5); the last is real brother of the deceased whom he visited during the fateful night in the month of Ramzan; Mst. Naz Malik is a niece, wife of Abdul Fatah (PW-4), residents of the locality; all of them unanimously pointed their fingers upon the petitioner, accompanied by the absconding co-accused who took on the deceased shortly after close of Sehar. In this backdrop, the hypothesis of a mistaken identity in the month of June with early dawn is beside the mark. Given the location of police station at a distance of 30/32 kilometers from the place of occurrence in the province of Balochistan with primitive means of communication, report straight at the police station cannot be viewed with suspicion. With assistance of learned counsel, we have gone through the statements of witnesses to find them in a confidence inspiring unison; inconsequential cross-examination mostly comprising of bald suggestions, each vehemently denied, fails to reflect upon the credibility of witnesses; on the contrary, confirms an ongoing dispute between the deceased and Dur Khan, one of the accused still Criminal Petition No.50-Q of 2017 3 absconding. The witnesses being inmate of the premises, themselves have no axe to grind against the accused nor are expected to swap the actual offender with the innocent, as there is nothing on the record to even obliquely entertain any theory of substitution; they have rightly been held as worthy of credence; reliance upon their testimonies by the Courts below being in accord with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 13th October, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020 (Against order dated 15.4.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench in Crl. Misc. No.BA No.142-B/2020) Kamran Ullah …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Talat Mehmood Zaidi, ASC Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR For the State: Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC with Umar Nawaz, ASI For the Complainant: Mr. Dil M. Khan Alizai, ASC Date of hearing: 06.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aftab Alam, 35/36, left home at about 7:00 p.m.; his wife, as stated by him, expected her to return shortly thereafter, however, upon failure to return, became suspicious and informed her brother-in-law at 2:00 a.m.; his mobile handset did not respond multiple attempts. Search started in the morning to find the dead body lying in a pool of blood in a field; he was done to death by unknown assailant(s) with fire shots; stricken by shock, the family was clueless about the motive behind the crime. As investigation progressed, the petitioner was taken on board as a suspect on the basis of complainant’s supplementary statement dated 26.2.2020 wherein Sajid Ali Shah was also arrayed as an accomplice for the murder in the backdrop of a monetary dispute; the latter pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol, a weapon that did not forensically tally with the casings secured during Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020 2 spot inspection. Semi burnt cell phone handsets used by the deceased, concealed underneath the soil, were recovered at petitioner’s instance vide inventory dated 25.2.2020. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Be that as it may, complainant’s strong belief about petitioner’s culpability notwithstanding, evidentiary value of various pieces of prosecution evidence hitherto collected has to survive judicial scrutiny to cross the barriers of rules of evidence; the exercise has admittedly not yet commenced. Prosecution for the present is not possessed with any digital proof to establish subscriptive nexus between the deceased and the handsets. Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) purportedly suggestive of conversation between the deceased and the accused shortly before his death, nonetheless, sans contents/details thereof. Without prejudice to the merits of the prosecution case, to be essentially settled by the trial Court, nonetheless, petitioner’s case squarely falls within the remit of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; a case for his release on bail stands made out. Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020 is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner/appellant shall be released on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 6th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 507-L OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15372-B/2021) Kazim Ali and others … Petitioners VERSUS The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioners: Rana Muhammad Shahid Mahmood, ASC a/w petitioners For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.g. Mr. Tahir Bashir, SI Date of Hearing: 11.10.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 285 dated 25.07.2020 under Sections 337- F(v) / 337-F(i) /337-F(ii) /337-A(i) / 337-H(2) / 354 / 452 / 427 / 148 / 149 PPC at Police Station Sher Garh, District Okara in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioners is that they along with co-accused while armed with firearms and ‘sotas’ firstly attacked on the complainant party and injured cousin of the complainant and thereafter trespassed into the houses of relatives of the complainant, gave beating to the women folk and children and also set on fire two motorcycles. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances of this case. Criminal Petition No. 507-L/2021 2 Contends that the story advanced by the complainant does not inspire confidence as a large number of persons while committing the offence in the manner as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses, their role cannot be specified with exactitude as is narrated in the crime report. Contends that 4 out of 17 accused were arrested by the Police and they have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of first instance. Contends that the role of the petitioners is similar to the co-accused already granted bail, hence, they are also entitled for the concession of bail on the principle of consistency. Contends that the learned High Court while adjudicating the matter has wrongly observed that Sections 354/427/452/148/149 PPC are attracted in this case and did not take into consideration the role ascribed to each of the petitioners. Contends that most of the offences are bailable in nature and cannot be made basis for declining bail to the petitioners without recording the evidence during the course of trial. Lastly contends that the petitioners are entitled for the concession of bail on this score alone. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer argued that there is no denial to this fact that co-accused of the petitioners four in number have been granted post-arrest bail and as such the case of the petitioners is similar to those already extended concession of bail. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the record. There is no denial to the fact that there is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been given. As per the contents of the crime report, 17 persons are nominated in the crime report, who allegedly while variously armed caused injuries to the injured PWs on various parts of the body. There is a counter version of the occurrence which was recorded by the local police regarding the same occurrence vide FIR No. 310/2020 under Sections 379 / 354 / 427 / 337-A(i) / 337-L(ii) / 148 / 149 PPC at Police Station Sher Garh, District Okara. While evaluating the facts and circumstances narrated from both ends, it has become imperative for this Court to adjudicate the matter keeping in view the role ascribed to accused nominated in counter case and while keeping the same in juxtaposition it has to arrive at Criminal Petition No. 507-L/2021 3 a conclusion which meets the requirements of the dictates of justice. During course of arguments, it has been pointed out that four co- accused of the petitioners were taken into custody by the local police and they have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction, which has not been challenged by the complainant at any forum. We are conversant with the fact that as per the contents of the crime report, the case of either of the petitioners cannot be distinguished from the four co-accused who have been granted the concession of post-arrest bail. In such like situation, when it is admitted fact that the role ascribed to a large number of accused is of general nature and that cannot be distinguished from each other, if 4 out of 17 accused have already been granted bail by the court of competent jurisdiction which remains unchallenged by the complainant, any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioners because of the reason that soon after their arrest they would be entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. In a similar situation in the case reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), the respondent, who was involved in a murder case, was allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court while the other similarly placed co-accused were granted bail after arrest. The complainant did not challenge the grant of bail after arrest to the similarly placed co-accused and sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent before this Court by filing a criminal petition but this Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail by holding that “no useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail.” In these circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioners is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to their guilt. Criminal Petition No. 507-L/2021 4 7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioners are admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 11th of October, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 509 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in Cr. Misc. (BA) No. 190-B/2021) Akhtar Ullah @ Akhtar Ali … Petitioner VERSUS The State and another … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Farman Ali Khattak, ASC For the State: Mr. Shumayl Aziz, Addl. A.G. KPK Date of Hearing: 16.06.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant criminal petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the impugned order of learned Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench dated 26.04.2021, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 05 dated 12.01.2021 under Sections 324/427/34 PPC at Police Station Shah Saleem, District Karak in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. As per contents of the crime report, it is alleged that the petitioner while armed with a Kalashnikov, on the asking of co- accused Rehman Ullah, made a fire shot, which landed on the right heel of injured PW Muhammad Wajid (complainant of the case), as a consequence whereof, the instant FIR was got registered by him. Petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karak, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2021. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench by filing a criminal miscellaneous application which too met the same fate vide the order impugned. Hence, the instant petition for leave to appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts Criminal Petition No. 509/2021 2 and circumstances of this case; that the motive ascribed to the petitioner is not substantiated from the record; that though petitioner has been ascribed direct role of causing a firearm injury on the person of injured PW (complainant) but according to medico legal report, the dimension of the injury as well as the name of the expert who examined the injured PW has not been mentioned, which is spelled out from Page 18 of the instant petition; that as per prosecution, the injured PW was admitted to the hospital and examined on 12.01.2021, whereas he was discharged from the hospital on 25.01.2021 but the details of the same are not mentioned anywhere. It has further been argued that the locale of injury is on the non-vital part which clearly reflects that the petitioner had no intent to commit the murder of injured PW (complainant) and the provisions of section 324 PPC are not attracted in this case. Lastly, it has been argued that petitioner is behind the bars since 23.02.2021, investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation and on this score alone, he is entitled for the concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, KPK has supported the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. Learned Law Officer contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the crime report with allegation of causing a firearm injury on the person of complainant with a lethal weapon; that an empty of 7.62 bore was recovered from the spot which clearly shows that the injured PW was fired at by the petitioner with a Kalashnikov. He, however, frankly conceded that during the course of investigation, no recovery of alleged weapon has been affected from the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Law Officer and have perused the record with their able assistance. There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has taken place in the broad daylight, which was promptly reported. As far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned, there are certain aspects of the case which require determination to arrive at a conclusion whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. It has been observed by us that the injury ascribed to the petitioner on the person of complainant is surely on his right heel. During the course of medical examination of complainant, the Doctor has not given any details regarding dimension of the injury. Though one Criminal Petition No. 509/2021 3 empty of 7.62 bore was secured from the spot by the investigating agency, but no recovery of alleged weapon was affected from the petitioner. Therefore, the recovery of crime empty from the spot becomes inconsequential and does not have any legal force. Perusal of medico legal report reveals that the same is on a plain paper and name and designation of the Doctor who examined the injured PW have not been mentioned. As per prosecution, the injured PW Muhammad Wajid (complainant) remained admitted in the hospital after the occurrence for a couple of days but discharge slip is not available on the record. In Muhammad Umar Vs. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), while granting bail to accused, this Court observed that a perusal of medical certificate of injured revealed that allegedly the accused (petitioner) fired upon the outer side of the right leg’s middle part of the injured Shahid Iqbal, therefore, prima facie, he had no intention to fire upon the vital part of the injured for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Even otherwise, the question qua applicability of section 324 PPC would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. All these aspects of the case if evaluated conjointly, the case of petitioner squarely becomes one of further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.02.2021, the investigation of the case is complete and no useful purpose would be served while keeping him behind the bars till the conclusion of the trial pending adjudication before the Trial Court. 6. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 16th of June, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.513 & 102-P of 2021 (Against the judgment dated 19.3.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench Bannu in Crl. A. No.7-B/2021) Muhammad Anwar (in C.P.513/2021) Dildar Hussain (in C.P.102-P/2021) …..Petitioner(s) Versus The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another (in C.P.513/2021) Muhammad Anwar and another (in C.P.102-P/2021) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Asghar Ali Khan, ASC (in Cr.P.513/2021) Mr. Tariq Khan Kakar, ASC (in Cr.P.102-P/2021) For the State: Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qurshi, Addl. Prosecution General, KP Date of Hearing 28.01.2022. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for murderous assault, Muhammad Anwar, petitioner, was returned a guilty verdict by a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Banda Daud Shah, District Kark; convicted under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to 8-years RI with a direction to pay fine; on coordinate charges, arisen out of injuries endured by Diladar Hussain (PW-6), he was directed to pay monetary compensation in terms of Daman. The High Court maintained the conviction, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment of 8-years to 4-years vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2021, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed for. 2. On the eventful day, i.e. 01.04.2019, Dildar Hussain was present in the village mosque when at 2:00 p.m. within the Criminal Petition Nos.513 & 102-P of 2021 view of witnesses, the petitioner armed with a .30 caliber pistol targeted him with multiple fire shots. Motive for the crime was a dispute over installation of water connection. The injured was shifted to the hospital where the Medical Officer noted three entry wounds with corresponding exits involving right hypochondrium, umbilicus and dorsal side of right feet. The casings secured from the spot were opined to have been fired from one weapon, never recovered during the investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts ran in concurrence of error inasmuch as the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case on the strength of proof beyond doubt; that independent witnesses, admittedly present in the mosque, did not come forward to support the complainant, himself no other than real brother of the injured; that forensic report regarding casings in the absence of any wedded weapon hardly lent any support to the prosecution. Nature of injuries fails to constitute “intention or knowledge” within the contemplation of section 324 of the Act, a sine qua non, to attract mischief thereof and, thus, the petitioner could only be saddled with the monetary compensation for the injuries endured by the witness, being outcome of assault simpliciter, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer faithfully defended the impugned judgment. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. The occurrence is a daylight affair inside village mosque at a point of time where the presence of witnesses cannot be viewed as improbable. The incident is reported to the police with a remarkable promptitude, followed by medical examination that conclusively confirms receipt of three fire shots with a weapon awfully lethal by all means. Survival of the victim is nothing less than a miracle; he came forward to unambiguously point his accusing finger upon the petitioner, a solitary assailant at the scene. It would be naive to argue that three consecutive fires hitting different parts of the body do not constitute “intention or knowledge” and circumstances contemplated by section 324 of the Act ibid to bring petitioner’s case within the remit of the said statutory provision. Aftermaths of a deadly assault particularly by Criminal Petition Nos.513 & 102-P of 2021 firearm cannot be quantified on the touchstone of degree of concomitant violence experienced by a victim; it is not his perseverance or endurance that determines assailant’s culpability nor intervention by Providence presents him any extenuating option; it is solely his own conduct that decisively determines the intention regardless of the consequences thereof. Likewise, primary punishment for murderous assault is imprisonment that may extend to 10-years; punishment provided for the injuries is, in addition thereto, so as to monetarily compensate the victim, having no indemnifying effects on the former. Criminal Petition No.513 of 2021 fails. Leave declined. Much water has flown under the bridge and, thus, we do not feel inclined to enhance sentence at this point of time. Criminal Petition No.102-P of 2021 also fails; leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 28th January, 2022 Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, CJ Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Mr. Justice Athar Minallah CRIMINAL M. A. NO. 641 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. NIL OF 2023 (Application for exemption of Filing of Petition through Special Attorney in the matter of arrest of the petitioner from the premises of IHC). Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi …Petitioner(s) Versus The State and others …Respondent(s) For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi (in-person) (on Court’s call) Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC Raja Aamir Abbas, ASC Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC Mr. Salman Safdar, ASC Mr. Niaz ullah Niazi, ASC Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed Kharal, ASC Mr. Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, ASC Mr. Waqar Rana, ASC For Federation : Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, AGP a/w:Barr. Maryam Ali Abbasi, Adv. Mr. Javaid Iqbal Wains, Addl AG Mr. Rashdeen Nawaz Kasuri, Addl. AG For NAB : Mr. Asghar Hussain, PG NAB Mr. Muzaffar, DPG Mr. M. Rafay Maqsood, Sr. Spl. Prosecutor For ICT : Mr. Jehangir Khan Jadoon, AG Dr. Akbar Nasir Khan, IGP Date of hearing : 11.05.2023 at 05:45 pm Crl.M.A. NO. 641 OF 2023 2 O R D E R For the reasons to be recorded later, this Misc. Application is allowed, Criminal Petition be numbered accordingly and the same is converted into appeal and disposed of in the following terms: i) The manner of execution of the arrest warrant issued by the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) dated 01.05.2023 in the Al-Qadir Trust case within the premises of the Islamabad High Court against petitioner is invalid and unlawful. The execution of said warrant violated the petitioner’s right of access to justice and the sanctity and safety of the Court as he had already surrendered to the Court for seeking judicial relief against the action taken by NAB in the Al-Qadir Trust case. In this regard, the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 4, 9, 10-A and 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan have been infringed. ii) The petitioner is directed to be produced before the Islamabad High Court tomorrow i.e. 12.05.2023 at 11:00 am for hearing of his Writ Petition filed to challenge the NAB action against him in the Al-Qadir Trust Case. The NAB authorities and the ICT Police shall ensure foolproof security to the petitioner until his production in the Islamabad High Court in this regard. iii) The Registrar of the Islamabad High Court is directed to place the matter i.e. the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court for constituting a Bench for hearing the same. iv) In order to ensure the security of the petitioner until his appearance in the High Court tomorrow i.e. 12.05.2023 at 11:00 am, he shall remain in the premises where he is presently retained in police custody, namely, the Police Lines Guest House, H-11, Islamabad (Police Guest House). Crl.M.A. NO. 641 OF 2023 3 v) Whilst the petitioner is in the Police Guest House, he shall be entitled to meet up to 10 guests, whose particulars shall be provided by him to the concerned Police Officer, subject to security check by the police. These persons shall be allowed to stay with the petitioner as long as desired by him. vi) This order shall remain valid until the production of the petitioner before the High Court in the aforementioned Writ Petition tomorrow i.e. 12.05.2023 at 11:00 am and shall be subject to any order that is passed by the High Court. vii) This order shall not cause any prejudice to the proceedings of investigation being conducted by the NAB in the matter of the Al-Qadir Trust. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Judge Sd/- Judge Islamabad, 11.05.2023. NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.520 of 2020 (Against the order dated 30.4.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Cr. M. No.8114- B/2020) Hazrat Nabi Shah alias Hazrat Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Muazzam Butt, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Rana M. Arif Kamal Noon Prosecutor General, Punjab (on court notice) Rana Abdul Majeed, Addl. P.G. Punjab Mr. Sarwar Sindhu, Addl. P.G. Punjab Rai Tahir, Addl. I.G. CTD Punjab Sohail Khan, Inspector/IO, CTD, Sargodha Syed Asad Muzaffar, SP Model Town Lahore Altaf Hussain, DSP Nisar Ahmed, SI/Incharge Investigation Munir Ahmed, SI For co-accused (Ismail Khan): Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC along with Ismail Khan, in person. Date of hearing: 25.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- On 4.12.2019, pursuant to a tip off, Hazrat Nabi Shah and Ismail Khan, residents of Khyber Pakhtunkhaw were intercepted by a contingent of CTD Sargodha along with a cache that included explosives, an hand grenade, a .30 caliber pistol as well as live munitions. A learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court Lahore granted bail to Ismail Khan on 23.4.2020, however, declined the motion by Hazrat Nabi Shah vide order dated 30.04.2020. It is in this backdrop that Hazrat Nabi Shah alias Hazrat Khan petitioner approached this Court for bail when vide order dated 30.07.2020 Ismail Khan co-accused was sent for to show cause as to why bail granted to him be not cancelled. 2 The High Court granted bail to Ismail Khan co-accused on the ground that hand grenade, statedly recovered at his instance, was not sent to any notified expert for confirmation of its explosive potential and that the official who defused the bomb was not a declared “notified expert”. It is on this finding that the learned counsel for Hazrat Nabi Shah alias Hazrat Khan sought bail on the ground of requirement of principle of consistency besides arguing that petitioner’s family had lodged complaint of his having been a missing person much earlier than his arrest in the present case and it is for this reason that a fake recovery is foisted upon him to validate his illegal detention. Pursuant to notice, Ismail Khan co-accused, is in attendance; adopting the reasons of the High Court, it is argued by his learned counsel that he had been rightly released on bail as his culpability in the absence of a forensic report squarely brought his case within the purview of further probe; he has next argued that once bail is granted, exceptionally strong grounds are required to recall the freedom, a practice consistently followed by this Court. Learned Prosecutor General Punjab has faithfully defended the State. It is argued that the accused, apparently having no inter se relationship, hailing from the remoteness of a different province, were arrested red-handed with a substantial volume of explosives and arms with huge capacity to play havoc in a populous city and as such there was no occasion for grant of bail to one of them on a ground that was not only legally untenable but also could not be attended without travelling beyond the barriers of tentative assessment, a journey prohibited by law. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. The accused, both teenagers, respectively belong to different parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhaw, i.e. Peshawar and Mehmand Agency; they had apparently no business to be in a distant city and as such hypothesis of their manipulated arrest, as argued at the bar, may not find a buyer. Similarly, seizure of considerable quantity of explosives that included an hand grenade, a pistol and cash cannot be brushed aside on a bald denial alone as the local authorities do not appear to have an axe to grind. On the contrary, their surprise arrest and recovery of contraband constituted ‘reasonable grounds” to bring their plea within the remit of Prohibition, standing in impediment to their release on bail. On the date of their arrest i.e. 04.12.2019, the Investigating Officer along with Muhammad Suleman, Bomb Disposal Squad Expert attached 3 with Civil Defence Sargodha, defused the hand grenade and prepared a memo with following remarks:- “(a) It is certified that A/M Explosives material found alive, serviceable, operational and can be used for any types of terrorists activities. (b) It is further clarified that explosive cannot be extracted from hand grenade and detonators for preparation of samples parcels as they contains High/Primary high explosive which is very sensitive to heat and spark.” The above observations of the expert escaped the notice of the High Court that also appears to have ignored forensic reports confirming awful lethality of other items seized in the totality of circumstances and, thus, erroneously misdirected itself to grant bail to Ismail Khan, co-accused, inexorably placed in an identical position with his co-accused, rightly denied the concession. Argument that once bail is granted, recall requires most extraordinary measures is beside the mark as in an appropriate case, like one in hand, the Court would unhesitatingly strike down the error, manifestly reflecting upon the law. Seizure of high intensity explosives/devices given their devastating potential/threat to unsuspecting public at large must be viewed with appropriate caution, therefore, having regard to the legislative intent, exercise of discretion in bail matters needs to be contoured carefully. Criminal Petition No.520 of 2020 fails. Leave declined. Order dated 23.04.2020 is set aside; bail granted to Ismail Khan co-accused is cancelled. The above observations, however, shall not shadow the trial, to be essentially settled on the strength of evidence alone, with all convenient dispatch, preferably within a period of six months. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 25th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Crl. Petition Nos.527 to 529 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No.520/2018 (Against the judgment dated 06.04.2017 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Cr.As.460-E, 468a-E and 482-E of 2014) NAB through its Chairman, Islamabad …Petitioner (In all cases) Versus Brigadier (Retd.) Hamid Mehmood (Crl. Petition No.527 of 2017) Muhammad Shafique Ahmed (Crl. Petition No.528 of 2017) Khawaja Jamil Ahmed (Crl. Petition No.529 of 2017) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Naeem Tariq Sanghera, (In all cases) Special Prosecutor, NAB For the State: N.R. (In all cases) Date of Hearing 22.02.2022. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Brig. ® Hamid Mehmood, Muhammad Shafiq Ahmed and Khawaja Jamil Ahmed, respectively arrayed as respondents in Crl. P. No.527, 528 & 529 of 2017, respectively, were returned a guilty verdict by Accountability Court No.1 Rawalpindi in NAB Reference No.19 of 2006 vide judgment dated 11.11.2014; convicted under section 9-a (iii), (iv), (vi) & (xii) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and sentenced to 12-years rigorous imprisonment each with fine to the tune of US $ 2.4 million, to be apportioned equally, recoverable as arrears of land revenue, under section 10 thereof with forfeiture of US $ 1,15,883 deposited by Brig. ® Hamid Mehmood respondent at the time of his release on bail; they were also disqualified in terms of section 15 of the Ordinance ibid. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, vide 2 Crl. Petition Nos.527 to 529 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No.520/2018 impugned judgment dated 6.4.2017 acquitted the respondent from the charge, being impugned through the captioned petitions. 2. According to the prosecution, Brig. ® Hamid Mehmood was chief executive/owner of a Lahore based company set up under the name and style of Khalid Tariq Trading Company whereas Muhammad Shafique Ahmed, Director of Nizampur Cement Plant (NCP), owned by Army Welfare Trust (AWT); Khawaja Jamil Ahmed respondent ran a business at Karachi under the rubric of Unique Agency. M/s Muhammad Shafique Ahmed in connivance with co- accused Khawaja Jamil Ahmed, latter purporting as an agent of M/s Product & Technologies Singapore signed a contract for supply of 40000 metric ton Indonesian coal to furnace the cement plant, without any accreditation from the said company. As per prosecution, Brig. ® Hamid Mehmood, being at the helm of affair and fully cognizant of the scam, played a pivotal role in transfer of Rs.144 million through Soneri Bank Rawalpindi by producing fake shipping documents without any consignment, ever reaching the furnace. It is also prosecution case that through fake and forged documents, a sum of US $ 2395115 was released for M/s Products & Technologies Singapore with the connivance of one Hong Wei on 28.3.2005, a portion whereof comprising US $ 115883 were transacted in the personal foreign currency account of Brig. ® Hamid Mehmood during the period 31.3.2005 to 19.4.2005. Khawaja Jamil Ahmed respondent caused further loss to the exchequer by assisting the co-accused to fabricate fake/bogus shipments from a local source to the tune of Rs.55.72 million. Total loss to the exchequer is worked out as Rs.13,70,91,628/- As the respondents claimed trial the prosecution produced 12 witnesses besides plethora of documentary evidence, confirming inter se transactions through automatic banking systems, viewed as constituting preponderance of “proof beyond doubt” by the learned Accountability Judge. 3. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB contends that in the face of irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, comprising transactions through banking channels, there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain any hypothesis, other than respondents’ guilt and, thus, 3 Crl. Petition Nos.527 to 529 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No.520/2018 the impugned acquittal, being in gross violation of settled norms of administration of criminal justice, warrants interference to avoid miscarriage of justice as well as to secure financial interest of the Republic. It is next argued that the so called “shortcomings” referred to by the High Court, being peripheral, illusory and inconsequential could hardly override the tangible positive proof, inexorably pointed upon respondents’ culpability, being artificial, merit outright rejection. Leave is granted to, inter alia, consider the above contentions. Notice shall issue to the respondents through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.1 million each with one surety, returnable to Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Direction issued by the High Court for the refund of amount deposited by Brig. ® Hamid Mehmood respondent at the time of his release on bail is held in abeyance till the final disposal of the appeal. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 22nd February, 2022 Azmat/- 4 Crl. Petition Nos.527 to 529 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No.520/2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.527 of 2020 (Against the order dated 28.4.2020 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Crl. B. A.T. No.40/2020) Noor Bakhsh …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan Tareen, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Syed Baqar Shah, ASC Date of hearing: 01.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Noor Bukhsh, petitioner herein, seeks admission to post arrest bail; he had allegedly shot one Abdul Qayyum, way back on 29.9.2013 within the remit of Police Station Gawadar on his opposition over an unauthorized gasoline outlet, managed by him in the neighbourhood; fire shot injury on the spinal cord finally resulted into the death, though after lapse of almost six years. Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, after injured’s death has been substituted with section 316 thereof. Repeated attempts for bail failed before the Courts below, last being in the High Court on 28.04.2020 on account of absence of a fresh ground. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner stayed away from law for a period exceeding half a decade and was finally arrested on 3.2.2020; being a fugitive from law, that too for a pretty long period of time, he has disentitled himself to the concessions, ordinarily extended in discretion to an offender. While it is for the trial Court to determine the cause of death and consequences thereof, the case initially set up in the crime report, supported by the statements of the witnesses and medical evidence constitutes ‘reasonable grounds’ within the contemplation of section Criminal Petition No.527 of 2020 2 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with space for further probe or inquiry in absence whereof, he cannot be released on bail even on that score. Petitioner’s last attempt in the High Court through a subsequent petition without any fresh ground has rightly been declined, calling for no interference by this Court. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 1st July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR MR. JUSTICE SAYYEO MAZAHAR AL! AKBAR NAQVI '9FA) CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 53-Q & 66-Q OF 2020 (On appeal against the judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Appeal No. 43712017 & Murder Reference No, 1112017) GuI Zarin S/O Abdul Hakim etc Kamal-ud-Din Petitioners (in Cr.P. 53-QJ2020) (In Cr.P. 66-0J2020) Versus Kamal-ud-Din and another (in Cr.P. 53-QJ2020) The State (in Cr. P. 66-012020) Respondent(s) For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC (in Cr.P. 53-QJ2020) Mr. Jameel Ramzan, ASC (in Cr.P. 66-013030) For the State: Syed Pervaiz Bukhari, State counsel Date of Hearing: 09.03.2022 JUDGMENT SAYVED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQV!, J.- Petitioner Kamal-ud-Din was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Killa Abdullah at Chaman pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 6812003 dated 31.05.2003 under Sections 302/324/337-A/147/148/149 PPCfor committing murder of Muhammad Sabir, cousin of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.12.2017 convicted the petitioner Kamal-ud-Din under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay Compensation amounting to Rs.500,0001- to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default whereof to further suffer SI for six months. In appeal, the learned High Court, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC, altered the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. The amount of Compensation and the sentence in default whereof was maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. Against the impugned CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 53-Q & 66-Q OF 2020 -:2:- judgment, the petitioner Kamol-ud-Din has filed Criminal Petition No. 66- 0J2020 whereas the complainant has filed Criminal Petition No. 53-0.12020 seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the petitioner-convict Komal-ud-Din. 2. The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment reads as under:- '2. The prosecution case as gleaned from the application submitted by PW-1A GuI Zarin are that on 31st May, 2003 at 8:00 pm his three brothers Muhammad Hanfia, Muhammad Aulia, Noor Shah and cousin Muhammad Sabir were on their way home situated at Killi Salahuddin from border and when they reached Boghra Road bypass the accused persons Kamal, Karam, Fateh Khan, Abdul Samad Sons of Umai, Dilbar son of Fateh Khan, Abdul Samad, Sher Ali, Muhammad Wali sons of Abdul Qadeer, Shaista Khan, Gaji, Janon sons of Abdul Raheern and four unknown person had blocked the road by parking their vehicles, on which the brother of the complainant namely Hanfia told the accused persons to open the road, whereupon the accused persons became furious and attacked upon his brothers and cousins with Churries, knives and pistols. It was alleged that accused Kornai, Fateh Khan, Karam, Abdul Samad sons of Haji Umai and Dilbar son of Fateh Khan were making firing with pistols. It was alleged that due to firing made by accused Kornai, Muhammad Sabir became seriously injured and succumbed to his injuries on his way to hospital, whereas Muhammad Hanfia, Muhammad Aulia and Noor Shah were injured by knives and churries of accused persons. It was further alleged by the complainant that he can recognize the four accused persons by their appearance. With these allegations FIR No. 68 of 2003 under Sections 302, 324, 337-A, 147, 148, 149 PPC was registered with Levies Thana Chaman, District Killa Abdullah." 3. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced ten witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner-convict pleaded his innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled against him. He also recorded his statement on oath as envisaged under Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 and produced one witness Asmatu/lah in his defence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-convict argued that there are glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of the CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 53-Q & 66-Q OF 2020 -: 3:- prosecution witnesses of the ocular account, which have escaped notice of the courts be/ow. Contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, there was no justification to convict the petitioner. Contends that when the learned High Court after close scrutiny of the evidence has held that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, there was no motive or premeditation on the part of the petitioner, then there was no occasion to maintain his conviction. Contends that on the some set of evidence, co-accused Samad has been acquitted of the charge by the learned Trial Court, therefore, the petitioner also deserves the some treatment to be meted out. 5. On the other hand, /earned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned Law Officer contended that the impugned judgment to the extent of altering the sentence of death awarded to the petitioner-convict into imprisonment for life is contrary to low and facts and as such is liable to be set aside. Contends that the statements of the witnesses of the ocular account are sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioner on the capita/ charge but the learned High Court reduced the quantum of punishment on shaky and vague grounds, which are not tenable in law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their able assistance. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the statements of injured witnesses namely Muhammad Hanfia (PW-3), 0/ia (PW-4), Noor Shah (PW-6) and the statements of Sirajuddin (PW-2) and Nizamuddin (PW-5). These prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitioner- convict or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record. These PWs remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according to the circumstances happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring. As far as minor contradictions in the statements of the PW5 are concerned, the some ore CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 53-Q & 66-Q OF' 2020 -: 4:- natural as admittedly the petitioner remained absconder for a period of 12 long years and the trial begun after his arrest on 24.09.2015. Aftersuch a lapse of time, some minor discrepancies may occur but the some are neither dishonest nor are sufficient to discard the testimonies of the PWs of the ocular account. The medical evidence available on the record is in line with the ocular account so for as the nature, locale, time and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased is concerned. So for as the question that the PWs were closely related to the deceased, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed to sustain conviction of the petitioner-convict is concerned, it is by now a well established principle of law that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses unless previous enmity or ill will is established on the record to falsely implicate the accused in the case but no such thing could be brought on record. All these PW5 have reasonably explained their presence at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner-convict could not point out any reason as to why the complainant has falsely involved the petitioner-convict in the present case and let off the real culprit, who has committed murder of his cousin. Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. The complainant would not prefer to spare the real culprit and falsely involve the petitioner without any rhyme and reason. The recovery is held to be inconsequential as admittedly the petitioner was arrested after 12 years of the occurrence and it W05 impossible to retain the crime weapon with him in such a long period of time. The petitioner had also got recorded his statement under Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 and produced one defence witness in support of his version that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. However, except for the bald statement, no credible evidence in this regard could be brought on record. As for as the argument of learned counselfor the petitioner that on the some set of evidence co-accused Samad who was ascribed the similar role has been acquitted whereas the petitioner has been convicted is concerned, the learned High Court has rightly observed that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable to that of the acquitted co-accused as all the eye-witnesses stated that the bullet, which hit the deceased, was fired by the petitioner whereas only a general role of firing was ascribed to the co-accused Samad. In these circumstances, it can safely be said that the prosecution has brought on i1 CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 53Q & 66-Q OF 2020 -: 5:- record reliable evidence to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. However, so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, we are of the view that when the learned High Court itself has observed that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment over the blockage of passage and there was no pre- meditation on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner only fired single shot and did not repeat the some despite having ample opportunity to do so; no motive has been alleged by the prosecution for the commission of the crime and the recovery of the weapon is inconsequential, the sentence of imprisonment for life was not justified. In this view of the matter, we convict the petitioner Kamal-ud-Din under Section 302(c) PPC and sentence him to fourteen years RI. So for as the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that it was not a sudden affair and the finding that the petitioner only fired single shot is contrary to record is concerned, despite our repeated queries he could not show us from record anything in support of his contention, which could persuade us to hold otherwise. 7. For what has been discussed above, Criminal Petition No. 66- 0J2020 is converted into appeal and partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified as stated in the preceding paragraph whereas Criminal Petition No. 53-012020 is dismissed. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date. Islamabad, the 9th of March, 2022 Approved For Reporting Em

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed, ACJ Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.533 of 2019 (Against the judgment dated 22.4.2019 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous B.A. No.123-B/2019). Alamgir Khan …Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salahuddin Malik, ASC Mr. M.A. Sheikh, AOR For the State : Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl. A.G. KPK. Muhammad Alam, A.S.I. Date of Hearing : 31.7.2019. O R D E R Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Alamgir Khan, petitioner herein, declined downstairs throughout, seeks admission to bail; he was surprised by a raiding party, within the precincts of Police Station Lakki Marwat, surreptitiously siphoning natural gas in a residential premises to unauthorizedly generate electricity being distributed to a large number of consumers in the neighborhood; he is also accused of criminally intimidating the contingent, brandishing a pistol on them, however took to the heels on arrival of police. Appliances being used, comprising electric generators, stabilizers with electric panels as well as other paraphernalia to power the system were secured vide inventory. 2. Position taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires an in-depth analysis, essentially on the Criminal Petition No.533 of 2019 2 basis of evidence, yet to be recorded and thus falls far outside the barriers of tentative assessment. Statements of the witnesses, functionaries of the State with no animus or malice, duly corroborated by apparatus secured from the spot, constitute ‘reasonable grounds’, within the contemplation of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to prima facie frame the petitioner with the charge that attracts the bar contained therein as Section 462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 carries a punishment that may extend to ten years rigorous imprisonment. View taken by the Courts below being well within the remit of law is not open to any exception. Petition fails. Dismissed. Acting Chief Justice JUDGE Islamabad, the 31st of July, 2019 Ghulam Raza/* JUDGE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 (Against the judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Crl. Appeal No.728-J/2016 with M.R. No.10/2017) Khalid Naseer (in Cr.P.534/2019) Khurram Attaullah (in Cr.P.513/2019) …Petitioner(s) Versus The State (in Cr.P.534/2019) Khalid Naseer & another (in Cr.P.513/2019) ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Ch. Afrasiab Khan, ASC (in Cr.P. No.534 of 2019) For the State: N.R. For the Complainant: Raja Ikram Amin Minhas, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR (in Cr.P.513/2019) Date of hearing: 17.09.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Raja Saifullah Khan, 60/65, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, accompanied by Khuram Attaullah (PW-13), Farrukh Atta and Hameed Ullah (PW-14) was returning home at about 7:25 p.m. on 24.06.2010; as he reached in front of the house of Khalid Naseer, petitioner herein, the latter emerged therefrom with a .30 caliber pistol and soon after exhortation repeatedly shot the deceased, targeting different parts of the body. Litigation, both criminal as well as civil, raging between the parties is cited as motive for the crime. Still gasping for life, the deceased was rushed to THQ Hospital Pind Dadan Khan where after a brief struggle he succumbed to the injuries. Khurram Attaullah, PW laid information with the police at 8:40 p.m. in the hospital. The Medical Officer noted three entry wounds on the locales mentioned in Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 2 the crime report. The petitioner stayed away from law, however, was finally arrested on 16.3.2014; indicted before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pind Dadan Khan, he claimed trial that resulted into his conviction under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; he was sentenced to death vide judgment dated 29.10.2016. The High Court upheld the conviction, however, altered penalty of death into imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 11.03.2019, being assailed both by the petitioner as well as the complainant through the captioned petitions, being decided by this single judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the convict contends that the deceased was done to death in an un-witnessed occurrence and that the petitioner had been arrayed on account of a misconceived and misplaced suspicion due to past bad blood between the parties. In order to qualify the argument, the learned counsel has referred to the statement of Khuram Attaullah (PW-13) admitting that he managed a Computer & Commerce Institution at Mian Channu, a place situated at a considerable distance. According to the learned counsel, being architect of the case, absence of the complainant from the scene casts away the entire case. It is next argued that given the admitted animosity between the two sides, prosecution evidence required a more cautious and careful scrutiny, an exercise omitted by the Courts below. Failure of motive and inconsequential recovery have also been highlighted as flaws inherent in the prosecution structure. It would be unsafe to maintain the conviction, concluded the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the complainant while defending the impugned judgment has prayed for reversal of death penalty; he argued that given the magnitude of violence, callously unleashed upon the deceased without any provocation, there was hardly an occasion for the High Court to alter the penalty of death after affirming the conviction. According to him, the death penalty was the only conscionable wage in circumstances. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Crime scene is located at a distance of 15 kilometers from the police station; occurrence statedly took place at 7:25 p.m. during the last week of June. Despite gun shots, including on the back of chest with a corresponding exit, the petitioner was brought to the hospital in semi unconscious condition where he was attended by the medical officer at 9:00 p.m. under a police docket. Interregnum between the occurrence and deceased’s initial medical examination excludes possibility of any Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 3 manipulation, consultation or deliberation in recording of complaint at 8:40 p.m, 20 minutes before the conclusion of medical examination. Petitioner’s disappearance from the scene for about three years is a circumstance that cannot be viewed with favour. No serious challenge has been thrown to the motive, set up in the crime report, though disbelieved by the High Court for prosecution’s failure to establish the rancor through independent evidence. Dissimilarity of casings secured from the spot with the weapon shown to have been belatedly recovered is not of much consequence inasmuch as the petitioner was not expected to retain the pistol during the long period of his absconsion as a trophy of his crime. The fate of the case essentially hinges upon the ocular account furnished by Khuram Attaullah (PW-13) and Hameed Ullah (PW-14). Attack on former’s credentials as a chance witness, subsequently managed at the scene, is an argument structured on a half- cooked cross-examination and, thus, fails to inspire confidence; the witness candidly admitted that though resident of the village, he was running a Computer & Commerce Institution at Mianchannu; this inconclusive probe, by itself, does not exclude his presence from the scene at 7:25 p.m; in an otherwise inordinate cross-examination, his presence in Mianchannu, on the fateful day, is not even suggested to him and it was merely alleged that he was not present at the spot and that in connivance with the police he maneuvered the crime report, a position vehemently denied. Given the timeframe wherein the deceased was initially medically examined under a police docket and recording of complaint Ex.PJ shortly preceding therefrom do not support the hypothesis of complainant’s absence from the scene; he has comfortably faced the cross-examination by sharing all the relevant details compatible with the salient features of the incident and events collateral therewith. The next witness is Hameed Ullah (PW-14); his statement is in a complete unison with Khurram Attaullah PW and the defence counsel opened cross-examination with a suicidal question, in response whereto, he stated as under: “My house is adjacent to the Baithak of Khalid Naseer accused towards its eastern side” Subsequent attempts by the defence through multiple bald suggestions, consistently denied, failed to neutralize the impact. A witness, resident next to the scene of occurrence, furnishing exhaustive details, found consistent with the testimony of other witness, in line with medical evidence is entitled to credence without demur. Despite three entry wounds, nomination of Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 4 single accused by the complainant in the backdrop of persisting bad blood reveals a truthful restraint from casting a wider net, confined to the actual offender alone, who could not have been possibly swapped through substitution in a small rural neighbourhood. Criminal Petition No.534 of 2019 fails. Leave declined. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned High Court preferred the alternate penalty of imprisonment for life upon prosecution’s failure to produce independent evidence to establish the motive though otherwise figuring as a common ground on the record, nonetheless, imprisonment for life, a legal sentence provided under the law, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the quantum settled by the High Court. Criminal Petition No.513 of 2019 is dismissed. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 17th September, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 537 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Crl. Misc. No. 2846-B/2021) Sajid Hussain @ Joji … Petitioner VERSUS The State and another … Respondents For the Petitioner: Kh. Qaiser Butt, ASC a/w petitioner For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Jam Saleem, DSP Date of Hearing: 06.09.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 678/2019 under Section 302 PPC at Police Station Old Kotwali, Multan. The same relief was denied to him by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.04.2021 and was also declined by the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 07.05.2021. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that on 24.11.2019, the complainant and the petitioner went to see Malik Amir Sultan at his house. At about 01.00 am, one Haroon while armed with pistol came at the residence of the said Amir Sultan and made two fire shots with his pistol, one of which landed on the right thigh of the said Amir Sultan. The said Amir Sultan was evacuated for medical treatment in injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries on his way to hospital. Initially, the petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness in the FIR but subsequently on the statement of Mst. Masooma Bibi, real sister of the deceased, he was arrayed as an accused in the case. Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 2 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to mala fides of the complainant in connivance with the local police; that primarily the petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness in the crime report and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Investigating Officer in this regard; that the prosecution has taken a somersault after lapse of considerable time while introducing Mst. Masooma Bibi, who got recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she leveled the allegations of causing two successive fire shots on the person of the deceased to the petitioner; that the delayed statement of the prosecution witnesses introduced at a belated stage leaves sufficient room to extend the relief sought for; that the whole prosecution case is based upon bald statements of the two prosecution witnesses, which prima facie seem to be made after due deliberation and consultation, hence, the same do not strengthen the prosecution case in any manner. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has defended the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. He mainly submitted that the petitioner was specifically nominated by Mst. Masooma Bibi with a specific role of causing successive fire shots at the person of the deceased; that she is a natural witness and has no malice against the petitioner to falsely involve him in the case. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and have perused the record with their assistance. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has assailed the instant petition seeking extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail from this Court in a murder case, which entails capital punishment. The superior courts of the country are hesitant to extend the said relief in such like cases and the same is exercised with due care and caution sparingly. However, this Court being the ultimate court of justice is supposed to do complete justice in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice and whenever it feels that the case of the prosecution is based upon trump up charges or mala fides it comes for the rescue of the innocent persons. Even otherwise, a duty is casts upon the courts of law to provide protection of law to the innocent persons against whom frivolous litigation has been lodged. In the instant case, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness while lodging the crime Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 3 report with a role of facilitating the evacuation of the deceased to the hospital by calling Police Emergency Helpline ‘15’ and Rescue 1122. Apart from this, it is also admitted fact that the prosecution kept mum for almost one year and it was on 22.10.2020 that one Mst. Masooma Bibi was introduced by the prosecution who made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be an eyewitness of the occurrence and leveled the allegation of causing two successive fire shots on the person of the deceased to the petitioner. The statement of Mst. Masooma Bibi was further supplemented by another eyewitness. However, the same was recorded with an inordinate delay of 1 year and 4 months. During the course of proceedings before us, we have specifically inquired from the Investigating Officer about any progress made in the investigation qua the role of the petitioner but he failed to substantiate any incriminating material except the bald statements made by two prosecution witnesses at a belated stage. Delayed recording of statement of prosecution witnesses and its value has been enunciated by now as universal application where it is now established principle of law that any statement of the prosecution witnesses if recorded at a belated stage, it looses its sanctity. Reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Abdul Khaliq Vs. The State (1996 SCMR 1553). This judgment was followed by this Court in another judgment reported as Noor Muhammad Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 1049) wherein it was held as under:- “It is established principle of law that delayed recording of statement of the PW under section 161, Cr.P.C. reduces its value to nil. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case titled as "Abdul Khaliq v. The State" (1996 SCMR 1553 wherein it has been held as under:- "---S. 161---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34---Late recording of statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Value----Late recording of a statement of a prosecution witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C. reduces its value to nil unless delay is plausibly explained".” 6. We are also conscious of the fact that earlier the scope of pre-arrest bail was narrow and it was only limited to rare cases. However, the law is not static in any manner rather it has to grow while passing through the process of evolution which is an essential ingredient of safe administration of criminal justice. In the case of Miran Bux Vs. the State (PLD 1989 SC 347), the petitioner/accused was charged in a murder case but before he could be arrested, he Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 4 approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was accordingly granted to him. However, on the application of the complainant before the learned High Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner Miran Bux, the learned High Court cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to him. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned High Court, the petitioner in that case approached this Court and this Court restored the bail granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge by holding as under:- 4. Apart from this we find that the Sessions Judge granted the pre-arrest bail to the appellant after considering the merits of the, case inasmuch as he inter alia observed that the injury alleged to have been caused by the appellant to the leg of the deceased by gun. shot was according to the post-mortem note, neither fatal nor was caused on the vital part of the body and was declared to be simple and that it was a case of further inquiry so far as the appellant is concerned. The High Court did not at all, consider the case on merits though this Court in the case of Jamaluddin v. State 1985, SCMR1949 has observed at page 1952 of the report as follows: “it has been laid down by this Court that the grant or refusal of bail in criminal cases primarily depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard. In Murad Khan's case to which reference was made by the learned Judge, this Court reiterated the principle that arrest for ulterior motives such ' as humiliation and unjustified harassment was a valid consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail. Similar rule was laid down in Zia-ul-Hasan's case. In our opinion. therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, did not in any respect, disregard the well-recognized principle for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Without upsetting the finding, reached by the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner had been involved for ulterior motives of harassing due to enmity existing between the parties, the learned Judge in the High Court was not justified to invoke his suo motu powers for the purpose of canceling the order of bail." 7. This Court in the above-referred salutary judgment rendered by a five members’ bench has broadened the scope of pre- arrest bail and held that while granting extraordinary relief of pre- arrest bail, merits of the case can be touched upon. Hence, virtually the scope of pre-arrest bail has been extended by this Court while rendering the afore-referred judgment. Even otherwise, this aspect of the law further lends support from the bare reading of provisions of Section 497/498 Cr.P.C. The word ‘further inquiry’ has wide connotation. Interpretation of criminal law requires that the same should be interpreted in the way it defined the object and not to construe in a manner that could defeat the ends of justice. Otherwise, Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 5 an accused is always considered a ‘favorite child of law’. When all these aspects are considered conjointly on the touchstone of principles of criminal jurisprudence enunciated by superior courts from time to time, there is no second thought to this proposition that the scope of pre-arrest bail indeed has been stretched out further which impliedly persuade the courts to decide such like matters in more liberal manner. Because basic law is bail not jail. Otherwise, the liberty of a person is a precious right, which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Denial of liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore, the Courts should apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion. Such exercise should not be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy or casual manner as that would defeat the ends of justice because if the accused is ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation can be awarded to him for the long incarceration he had already suffered. Even none of the provisions of Cr.P.C provide any remedy to be claimed by the petitioner for its compensation. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances and the spirit of the law as stated above, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of extraordinary relief of pre- arrest bail. Resultantly, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2021 is hereby confirmed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 6th of September, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMAD Criminal Petition No.540-L OF 2021 (Against the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court of Lahore in Crl. Misc. No.19186-B/2021) Syed Husnain Haider …Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Syed Tayyab Nasir Mehmood, ASC (video link at Lahore) along with Syed Husnain Haider, in person (at Islamabad) For the Respondent(s): Ch. Muhammad Maqsood Butter, ASC Date of Hearing: 14.07.2021 O R D E R Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- In a family breach, the petitioner has been blamed by the complainant, no other than a close relative, to have issued him two bank cheques, to the tune of rupees one crore forty-seven lac, towards fulfillment of a financial obligation, arisen out of a botched sale transaction relating to some piece of land, bounced upon presentation; avoiding arrest for a considerable span of time, he has finally been declined judicial protection by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Lahore High Court vide order dated 31.3.2021 to argue before us that in the absence of any subsisting ‘financial obligation’ he had handed over the cheques to his brother Syed Zulqarnain as security instrument for the settlement of family feud, fraudulently taken over by the complainant, cancellation whereof, is being pursued through a declaratory suit, sub judice Criminal Petition No.540-L OF 2021 in a Civil Court at Chunian till date, a position vehemently contested by the learned Law Officer with the assistance of counsel for the complainant. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. The impugned instruments admittedly belonged to the petitioner; these carry a wording on their back as “shorty”, however, the learned counsel despite his best attempt has not been able to point out, even obliquely, any clause of contract/agreement or any portion thereof, in performance whereof, the petitioner purportedly stood surety. Supported by statutory presumption of being a valid instrument, a drawer cannot ward off the consequences of its failure through bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety. Even otherwise, within the family fold in a close degree, the petitioner has not been able to point out any mala fide or animus, possibly lurking behind his long due arrest in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, a sine qua non to divert the usual course of criminal law. View concurrently taken by the courts below being well within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge ISLAMABAD 14th July, 2021 Azmat/* “Not approved for Reporting” Criminal Petition No.540-L OF 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.540 of 2020 (Against the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Crl. Misc.No.719-B/2020) Muhammad Ejaz …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ghulam Farooq Awan, ASC Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR For the Respondent(s): N.R. Date of hearing: 07.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Accompanied by co-accused, the petitioner thrashed Sohail Ikram PW within the precincts of District Courts Rawalpindi, where he was present to record his statement as a witness against the assailants; he endured multiple injuries that included a nasal fracture. Petitioner’s plea for bail was withdrawn and dismissed as such on 2.4.2020. After his failure throughout, the petitioner again approached the Court for admission to bail on the ground that findings recorded by a medical board had furnished him a new ground for release on bail as the injury suffered by the complainant was viewed as possibly fabricated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a medical board comprising four experts unanimously opined as under: “After having gone through examination the Board is of unanimous opinion that regarding injury No.4, possibility of fabrication/fall cannot be ruled out” The above unanimity of opinion according to the learned counsel not only constituted a fresh ground but also squarely brought petitioner’s case within the remit of further probe. 3. Heard. Record perused. Criminal Petition No.540 of 2020 2 4. Occurrence took place on 10.12.2019 and the injured was examined same day when the medical officer noted as many as four injuries on his person and categorically ruled out possibility of their fabrication; he kept the injuries under observation and referred the examinee for radiographic examination wherefrom he was further referred for CT scan which confirmed fracture of nasal bone. The accused, however, moved learned Area Magistrate on 18.1.2020 for re-examination of the injured on the grounds that “medical report 2564/19 is totally false and fake and is being obtained by the complainant and other person while in connivance with medical officer and if, there is any injury on the body of the abovementioned person then the same is result of self-fabrication and concocted one”. The learned Magistrate without taking the injured on board or recording argument of ADPP, marked present during the proceedings, directed medical examination by the Standing Medical Board. It is in this backdrop, the Board assembled on 4.3.2020 to re-examine the complainant. It evaluated the nature of injuries on the basis of opinion recorded by the Radiologist Dr. Umm-e-Kalsum whom the injured was referred for C.T. Scan by Dr. Rida Arshad CMO and it is on the basis of findings recorded by the above medical officers that the Board rendered its opinion being relied upon by the petitioner. We have gone through the entire record of the case. The first medical officer has unambiguously ruled out possibility of any foul play, however, the learned Magistrate readily obliged the defence without affording opportunity of hearing to the injured; even the Law Officer is shown present as a silent spectator to the proceedings. The application moved on behalf of the accused is not only stereotype and slipshod but also self-destructive as well; on the one hand, it is asserted that the impugned medical report was totally false and fake with the alternate allegation of injuries being self suffered and fabricated in case these are noted during examination by the Board. There was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to hurriedly exercise ex-parte jurisdiction to the detriment of prosecution/injured in the face of allegations vague and non-specific. The first medical examination was protected by statutory presumption of being genuine under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 as well as under Article 150 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Such formidable statutory protections cannot be summarily dismantled on the whims of an accused struggling to ward off consequences of criminal prosecution, therefore, a Magistrate must insist for tangible and sufficient grounds to plausibly justify exposure of a person already Criminal Petition No.540 of 2020 3 wronged to the inconvenience and embarrassment of a re-examination, a consideration conspicuously missing in the present case. While an accused is certainly entitled to “Due Process of Law” and a meaningful opportunity to contest indictment with a view to vindicate his position, the prosecution and its witnesses also deserve protection of law so as to prosecute the case with least inconvenience and without unnecessary hardship; equality before law without equal protection is a travesty; scales must be held strictly in balance. Performance of medical board is no less dismal either. It miserably failed to take stock of findings recorded by Dr. Rida Arshad, CMO, reproduced as below: “Suspicious radiolucency is seen on nasal surface. Medico legal C.T. scan nasal bone is suggested. No bony injury is seen in (L) orbit and face.” She referred the examinee for C.T. scan conducted by Dr. Umm-e- Kalsum that conclusively confirmed fracture of the nasal bone; her finding is reproduced below: “Fracture nasal bone viewed.” The members of the medical board not only ignored the above findings, they went a step further in their inconsequential opinion to add the possibility of a fall as well, a case never agitated even by the accused. Even otherwise, observation that possibility of fabrication/fall cannot be ruled out is a judgment resting upon the brink of hypothetical possibility that by itself cannot override positive findings earlier unanimously recorded by the medical officers who attended the injured; possibilities are infinite and cannot dislodge proof. The opinion is also devoid of any objective finding and, thus, we do not feel inclined to receive the half-cooked hypothesis of fabrication/fall as a fresh ground in circumstances. Petition fails. Leave declined. Observations being issue specific will not cast their shadows upon the outcome of trial to be settled essentially upon the strength of prosecution evidence alone, expected to be concluded with all convenient dispatch. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 7th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.543 of 2020 (Against the order dated 5.3.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench Bannu in Crl. Misc. No.73-B/2020) Habib Ullah Jan & another …Petitioner(s) Versus The State through A.G. KPK & others …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Adil Aziz Qazi, ASC Mr. Sher Afzal Khan, ASC For the State: Mr. Fakhruddin Shah, ASC For the Complainant: Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC Date of hearing: 07.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-Habib Ullah Jan and Asif Ullah Khan are amongst the accused arrayed in a case of murderous assault, lodged by Saad Ullah PW. It is alleged that on the eventful day, differently armed, they assaulted Kaleem Ullah, Saad Ullah and Riffat Ullah, in consequence whereof, each sustained multiple injuries, confirmed by medico legal reports. An outstanding dispute over a piece of land triggered the episode. 2. Having regard to the magnitude of violence endured by the witnesses, no less than three in number, prima facie, supported by medical evidence, statements of the witnesses and spot recoveries, the High Court having found reasonable grounds, standing in impediment to petitioners’ release on bail in the absence of any consideration calling for further probe so as to circumvent statutory bar embodied in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, declined the request, a conclusion arrived at in its discretion and, on our own analysis, found by us as intra vires being judicially structured, no interference is called for. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 7th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan Criminal Petition No.549 of 2020 (Against the order dated 5.6.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Misc. No.19465-B/2020) Babar Nadeem …Petitioner(s) Versus The State through P.G. Punjab and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Naveed Ahmed Khawaja, ASC For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab along with Tana Tanvir, SHO, M. Akram, I/O. For the Respondent(s): Nemo Date of hearing: 21.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Manzoor Ahmed, deceased, was done to death by two unknown assailants, inside his house, located within the remit of Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan at 9:00 p.m. on 17.2.2020; they vanished into the darkness; identified as assassins Muhammad Din, Muhammad Latif and Tanvir Hussain were subsequently arrested under section 54 on 29.2.2020; it is upon their disclosure that Babar Nadeem, petitioner along with two others was taken on board as amongst the abettors behind the scene; one of them, namely, Naveed has since been let off from the array. As the investigation progressed, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Shahbaz PWs on 18.2.2020; according to them, they had seen the petitioner along with two others, shortly before the Criminal Petition No.549 of 2020 2 occurrence, an information that they statedly conveyed to the complainant after the occurrence. It is through these statements that the prosecution also introduced the motive that related to a brawl between the parties 4/5 months prior to the incident. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Argument that in the absence of any legal evidence there was no occasion for the Courts below to deny judicial protection to the petitioner in the face of mala fide vividly lurking behind the intended arrest warrants serious consideration. We would refrain to comment upon the absence of abettors’ name in the crime report despite their having been spotted by the witnesses, shortly before the tragedy struck a small rural neighbourhood i.e. Chak No.72-EB, nonetheless, the omission by itself brings petitioner’s culpability within the purview of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; combined with exoneration of Naveed from the list of abettors, argued as mutually destructive with the hypothesis of conspiracy, does admit space to contemplate considerations for arrest other than being noble; a case for judicial protection stands made out. Petition is converted into appeal and allowed; ad interim bail granted vide order dated 8.7.2020 is confirmed upon furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 21st July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Ghulam Raza/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.551 of 2020 (Against the order dated 28.04.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Crl. Rev. No.24/2020) Mehmood Qaisar …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Maulvi Anwar ul Haq, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC For the State: Mr. Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi, Advocate General Islamabad with Zulfiqar Ali, ASI, PS. I-9, Islamabad For the Respondent(s): Jam Khurshid Ahmed, ASC Date of hearing: 17.09.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the petitioner, was returned a guilty verdict by a learned Magistrate at Islamabad vide judgment dated 26.11.2019; he was sentenced to 3-years rigorous imprisonment, maintained throughout. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner issued a bank cheque in the sum of Rs.30,50,000/- to Muhammad Irfan complainant towards payment of sale consideration of a vehicle, bounced upon presentation. 3. Besides the witnesses, prosecution adduced documentary evidence comprising photocopies of the impugned cheque and bank slip, duly verified by Zulfiqar Ali ASI (PW-3) from Bank Manager Mansoor Ali who appeared before the Court as PW-1 to confirm the transaction. Agreement Ex.PC is also part of the record to establish purchase of complainant’s vehicle by the petitioner. Petitioner confronted prosecution evidence with an unsubstantiated plea of innocence with copies of applications moved by the complainant to the Crl. P. No.551 of 2020 2 Excise & Taxation Officer Islamabad confirming the transaction in retrospect. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after disputing production of photocopies of the bounced cheque and bank slip, alternately pleaded for the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, a request contested by the learned Law Officer with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant. Conceding production of photocopies, the learned Law Officer argued that Investigating Officer had verified the documents as true copies of the originals, required in a summary suit for the recovery of amount under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; it is further argued that the bank manager confirmed presentation of the instrument and, thus, prosecution successfully established the issuance of a cheque from petitioner’s account towards fulfillment of a financial obligation and its failure upon presentation. Adverting to the plea for reduction of sentence, the learned Law Officer presented details of no less than five other cases of identical nature pending in different courts to argue that the petitioner being an habitual offender was not entitled to any leniency. 5. Heard. Record perused. 6. The bank manager confirmed issuance of the impugned cheque and its presentation, bounced twice for lack of balance; he has also confirmed verification of dishonoured cheque produced before him by the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, issuance of the impugned bank cheque by the petitioner is not disputed and, thus, objection carries no weight. Similarly, registration of five other cases of identical nature is also a fact beyond dispute and, thus, it would be rather unconscionable, in circumstances, to reduce a legal sentence rightly awarded by the learned Magistrate, considered appropriate both by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judge-in-Chamber. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 17th September, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.560-L OF 2021 (Against the order dated 04.03.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No.11025/B/2021) Basharat Ali …Petitioner(s) Versus The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Khalid Ranjha, ASC For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, DPG Mr. Sibtain, I.O. For Respondent No.2: Mr. Tariq Nadeem, ASC Date of Hearing: 15.11.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore with a prayer to grant post arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 415 dated 31.10.2019 under Sections 302/324/34/109 PPC at Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Bahauddin in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with Kalashnikovs caused fire-arm injuries to Muhammad Anar and Mazhar Iqbal alias Mohri as a consequence of which Muhammad Anar died on his way to hospital. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.560-L OF 2021 -: 2 :- 3. At the very outset it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Further contends that though the petitioner was ascribed the role of causing injury to the deceased and injured PW, however during the course of second investigation it was found that the petitioner had no nexus with the crime alleged and even the recovery affected from the petitioner found to be not connected and as such the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling him for concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Law Officer, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, that the petitioner is nominated with specific role of causing injuries to the deceased as well as injured PW. Contends that the earlier bail petition bearing Criminal Misc. No.22590- B/2020 was dismissed while touching upon the merits of the case vide order dated 01.07.2020. Further contends that as said order was not assailed before this Court, therefore, the instant petition is barred by time and not entertainable in the given facts and circumstances. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record with their able assistance. There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has taken place within the premises of Police Station Miana Gondal, the parties also belong to the same vicinity and there is no chance of mis-identification especially when the parties are inimical to each other. As per the accusation against the petitioner, he is ascribed the role of causing fire-arm injury on the body of the deceased as well as injured PW. Both the injuries are spelt out from the medical report. During the course of first investigation, the petitioner was found fully involved in the case. The claim of the petitioner that during the second investigation, he was found innocent does not imprint any concession in his favour especially when this aspect was already taken into consideration by the High Court while dismissing the petition for bail in the first round of litigation. Further that the Investigating Officer who gave opinion in favour of the CRIMINAL PETITION NO.560-L OF 2021 -: 3 :- petitioner has not dared to place his name in column No.2, rather the same was placed in column No.3 of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Further that the ground urged before the High Court and before us was already in the knowledge of the petitioner and that cannot be made basis for filing another application before the High Court keeping in view the dictum laid down in The State through Advocate-General, NWFP Vs. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 SC 173), otherwise the ipsi dixit of the police is not binding, rather it has persuasive value but that depends upon the facts and circumstances surfaced on the record. It is salutary principle of law that each criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and has to be decided according to the peculiar facts brought on the record. The contention of the learned counsel that the recovery has become inconsequential has no bearing at this stage and the same would be resolved after recording of the evidence. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for enlargement on bail. Consequently, this petition having no merits is dismissed and leave is refused. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 15th of November, 2021 Approved for reporting Waqas Naseer/*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ Mr. Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan Criminal Petitions No. 562, 563 and 564 of 2019 (Against the judgment dated 04.03.2019 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Bail Cancellation Application No. 2358-P, 2088-P of 2017 and 2359-P of 2017) Fawad Ali (in all cases) …Petitioner versus The State, etc. (in all cases) …Respondents For the petitioner: Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC (in all cases) For the respondents: N.R. (in all cases) Date of hearing: 25.07.2019 ORDER Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ.: Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 772, 773 and 774 of 2019 in Criminal Petitions No. 562, 563 and 564 of 2019 The main petitions are barred by 45 days and the reason mentioned in these miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the main petitions has not been found by us to be valid or sufficient for the purpose. These miscellaneous applications are, therefore, dismissed. Criminal Petitions No. 562, 563 and 564 of 2019 2. These petitions are dismissed as barred by time. Criminal Petitions No. 562, 563 and 564 of 2019 2 3. Before parting with this order we would like to observe that these petitions seeking cancellation of the private respondents’ bail are even otherwise misconceived because the impugned judgments passed by the High Court show that during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court the private respondents in these petitions had failed to appear and resultantly non-bailable warrants for their arrest had been issued which could not be executed. The law already stands settled that if an accused person admitted to bail is subsequently declared a Proclaimed Offender or non-bailable warrants for his arrest are issued then such declaration or issuance of non-bailable warrants ipso facto amounts to cancellation of that accused person’s bail. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Yusuf Masih v the State (1987 P.Cr.L.J. 1412), Muhammad Boota v Muhammad Arshad and another (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1481-CB of 2009 decided by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 09.02.2009), Sharafat Ali v The State, etc. (Criminal Revision No. 680 of 2008 decided by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 15.04.2009 which order was subsequently upheld by this Court through the order dated 04.06.2009 passed in Criminal Petition No. 438-L of 2009) and Atta-ur-Rehman v Rana Phool, etc. (Criminal Petition No. 558-L of 2014 decided by this Court on 17.07.2014). Chief Justice Judge Islamabad 25.07.2019 Approved for reporting. Arif

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.566 OF 2021 (Against the judgment dated 03.05.2021 of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat passed in Criminal Appeal No.44-M/2021) Hayat Muhammad …Petitioner(s) Versus State through Additional Advocate General, KP and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Asadullah Khan Chamkani, ASC For the State: Mian Shafaqat Jan, Addl.A.G. KPK Date of Hearing: 20.09.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat dated 03.05.2021 whereby his appeal was partially allowed. 2. As per contents of the crime report bearing FIR No.38 dated 25.05.2020 registered under Sections 324, 148, 149, 337D, 337F(iii) and 337F(v) PPC at Police Station Talash District Lower Dir lodged by Lal Muhammad son of Taj Muhammad it was alleged that five persons in furtherance of common intention gathered close to his house and cut down the water pipeline. One of the accused Hayat Muhammad turned furiated and made fire shots with his pistol which landed on the front left side of abdomen, as a consequence the complainant sustained injury. The motive behind the occurrence was disclosed as cutting of water pipeline. In pursuance of the aforesaid crime report, the matter was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Timergara, District Lower Dir. Charge in the aforesaid crime was framed against the accused CRIMINAL PETITION NO.566 OF 2021 -: 2 :- persons. After completion of the same, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) Under Section 324 PPC to seven years RI; (ii) Under Section 337-D PC to five years RI with directions to pay arsh equal to 1/3 of diyat to the injured; (iii) 337F(iii) PPC to one year RI with directions to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to the injured; and (iv) 337F(v) PPC to one year imprisonment with directions to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to the injured. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment of the Trial Court was assailed before the learned High Court through Criminal Appeal No.44-M/2021. The learned High Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, maintained the conviction awarded to the petitioner under Sections 324 and 337-D PPC, however reduced the sentence from 07 years to 05 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 324 PPC, whereas the conviction and sentences awarded under Sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(v) were set aside. 3. During the course of proceedings before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the statements of Lal Muhammad (PW-3) and Bakhtiar Ahmad (PW-4) of the ocular account are at variance which do not inspire confidence. Contends that other prosecution witnesses produced by the prosecution are only corroborative in nature, hence the conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. When confronted, the learned counsel admitted that it is now settled principle of law that the statement of injured PW if corroborative with medical evidence is sufficient for conviction. 4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the judgments of the Trial Court and the learned High Court. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.566 OF 2021 -: 3 :- There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has taken place in a broad daylight and the parties are known to each other. The role ascribed to the petitioner by the injured PW, Lal Muhammad, clearly reflects that the statement made by him was not confusing in any manner rather the same is fully corroborated by medical evidence as Dr. Muhammad Iqbal (PW-12) has clearly reported in his testimony that there was an inversion wound with no blackening on left groin region with corresponding hole 1x1 cm on shalwar and qameez with blood stain, therefore, the medical evidence fully corroborates the statement of injured so far as the time, locale and nature of injuries is concerned. There was absolutely no chance of mis-identification, otherwise the substitution is a rare phenomenon in the instant case. We have gone through the statement of PW-3, Lal Muhammad who sustained injuries and found that the statement of injured PW is straightforward, confidence inspiring and does not left any room to reconsider the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner. After the occurrence, the pistol was snatched from the petitioner by PW-7 Sirajullah and was subsequently handed over to the SHO. From the place of occurrence two empties were also taken into possession. Both the pistol and the empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the report received is to the effect that the empties were fired from the pistol. As the prosecution has produced the ocular account, medical evidence and the same is also corroborated by the statement of the Investigating Officer, there is no possibility left to establish that both the courts below have not appreciated the law in its true perspective. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave is refused. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 20th of September, 2021 Approved for reporting Waqas Naseer/*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.574 & 575 of 2019 (Against judgment dated 7.3.2019 passed by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Crl. Appeal Nos.204 of 2015 & 02 of 2017) Tasar Mehmood (in Crl.P. 574/2019) Shahbaz Ahmed (in Crl.P. 575/2019) …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & others (in C.P. 574/2019) The State (in C.P. 575/2019) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tariq Mehmood Abbasi, ASC (in both cases) Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Mr. Niazullah Niazi, Advocate General, I.C.T. along with Mubarak SHO Shahzad Town, Azhar, SI/I.O. Date of hearing: 05.05.2020. JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Tasar Mehmood and Shahbaz Ahmed, petitioners, along with two others trespassed into a private hospital managed by Dr. Yousaf Ali (PW-11), located within the limits of Police Station Shahzad Town Islamabad to commit robbery on 26.11.2013 at 9:45 p.m; as the attendants on the reception resisted the intruders, they opened indiscriminate fire; Zahid Ali Khan (PW-10) survived the solitary gunshot, however, a comrade in crime, identified as Umair Shahzad fatally fell in the line of fire; in the wake of Criminal Petition Nos.574 & 575 of 2019 2 anticlimax, they took to the heels along with the snatched articles. Information was laid with the police by the owner who resided upstairs in the same premises. Spot inspection includes seizure of human blood and casings as well as lead bullets, 28 in number, vide inventories of even date. As the investigation progressed, Tasar Mehmood, petitioner, was arrested on 6.2.2014 followed by Shahbaz Ahmed on 5.3.2014; they were identified by the injured in a test identification parade under a magisterial supervision held on 7.3.2014; subsequently, upon disclosures, they led to the recovery of pistols P-11 & P-7, forensically found wedded with the seized casings. Prosecution is clueless about the fourth accomplice till date. Petitioners were indicted for homicide as well as robbery before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I (East) Islamabad; they claimed trial that resulted into their convictions vide judgment dated 28.11.2016; Tasar Mehmood petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life on both counts whereas Shahbaz Ahmed was acquitted from the charge of homicide, however, sentenced to imprisonment for life on coordinate charges with a direction to pay monetary compensation to the injured; they preferred appeals, during pendency whereof, the legal heirs of Umair Shahzad deceased compounded the offence of murder, in consequence whereof, Tasar Mehmood was acquitted from the said charge; the Islamabad High Court while maintaining remainder convictions reduced sentences of imprisonment for life to 10-years R.I. vide impugned judgment dated 7.3.2019, vires whereof, are being assailed by both the convicts through separate petitions, being decided through this single judgment. 2. It is argued that since the petitioners were not named in the crime report nor arrested at the spot, thus, there was no occasion for their conviction merely on the statement of a solitary witness who claimed to have identified them in a test identification parade, held in derogation to the principles/safeguards provided under the High Court Rules & Orders, otherwise inconsequential for lack of description of features as well as assignment of the roles respectively played by the culprits during the occurrence; absence of Mushtaq Hussain, Watchman, from the witness box has been referred to as a devastating blow to the credibility of prosecution case as, according to the learned counsel, his failure to testify would cast adverse inference within the contemplation of Article 129 (e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Criminal Petition Nos.574 & 575 of 2019 3 Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi, learned Advocate General Islamabad Capital Territory faithfully defended the impugned judgment. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. A promptitude intervened the events of fateful night; occurrence took place at 9:45 p.m., complaint is recorded 11:45 p.m. at the spot; Zahid Ali Khan (PW-10) is examined under a police docket in the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences; autopsy of the slain accomplice is carried out at 10:30 a.m. following day; none other than the deceased, identified through his CNIC, is arrayed by name in the crime report. Spot inspection confirmed the incident. Integrity of initial investigation is beyond doubt and it is through investigative process that the police reached out the petitioners; they were kept in judicial lock up and remitted into police custody only after they had been identified by the injured in the test identification parade. Weapons recovered pursuant to disclosures were forensically matched with the casings dispatched earlier than petitioners’ arrest. These formidable pieces of evidence were relied upon by the trial court to unhesitatingly return a guilty verdict. Composition of murder of co-accused by Tasar Mehmood in the High Court has been nothing less than a last straw in the episode. In this backdrop, criticism of alleged flaws in the test identification parade sounds a far cry. Reference to omission of assailants’ features and respective roles played by them during the occurrence is beside the point in circumstances. Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides mechanics to enable the witnesses to establish identity of unacquainted assailants, a dilemma increasingly confronting prosecution in detection of culprits in expanded urban neighbourhoods. For convenience of reference, it is reproduced below:- “Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.—Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.” Criminal Petition Nos.574 & 575 of 2019 4 Juridical wisdom, legislated with ingenious brevity par excellence, is nonetheless widely spaced to meet diverse situations as calamities seldom come about under ideal or identical circumstances; same applies to the responses by those who encounter such situations as crisis impacts differently upon individuals’ faculties and nerves to sustain and endure themselves during the ordeal, therefore, it would be unrealistically inexpedient to apply dogmatic standards with empirical exactitude to settle the question of assailant’s identity. There may be situations where witnesses are expected to be more expressive and descriptive but there may well be contra situations as well. The underlying purpose behind High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Part-C, based upon a circular issued by the Punjab Government way back on 19th of December, 1936 is primarily to ensure that the accused confronting the witnesses in a test identification exercise is least embarrassed or handicapped. Similarly, Rule 26.32 of the Police Rules, 1934, inter alia, provides as under:- (a) “The proceedings shall be conducted in the presence of a magistrate or gazetted police officer, or, if the case is of great urgency and no such officer is available, in the presence of two or more respectable witnesses not interested in the case, who should be asked to satisfy themselves that the identification has been conducted under conditions precluding collusion.” The survey of above provision of law renders it abundantly clear that the process of test identification parade has to be essentially carried out, having regard to the exigencies of each case, in a fair and non collusive manner, free from the taints of prejudice; a contra claim must rest upon evidential basis; the exercise is not an immutable ritual, inconsequential non performance whereof, may cause failure of prosecution case, otherwise structured upon clean and probable evidence. In the present case, the assailants surprised the witnesses and soon thereafter started snatching the valuables; upon resistance, one of them resorted to firing; a colleague fell to death on spot at the hands of his own accomplice and as such their identification by the witnesses constituted valid and reliable proof to drive home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant or the witnesses in their statements did not point out specific features and as such they were not required to improve upon their case during the test identification Criminal Petition Nos.574 & 575 of 2019 5 parade. An effective regime of administration of criminal justice has to be pivoted on a balance, correlating fair trial for an accused with a meaningful opportunity to the prosecution to drive home the charge on the strength of available evidence. Since corporal consequences are irreversible and freedom once forfeited cannot be restored or recompensed with retrospect, the Court must insist for “proof beyond doubt” to rule out possibility of error or hypothesis of innocence, nonetheless, at the same time, prosecution cannot be saddled to come forward with details hyper technical, artificial or illusory. Indictment structured on macro foundations of truthful evidence can sustain the charge. Evidence comprising natural witnesses, with dead body of a co- accused, whose murder was subsequently compounded by no other than one of the petitioners himself squarely constitute proof beyond doubt. Absence of Mushtaq Hussain, Watchman from the witness box does not raise any adverse inference as the remainder of the witnesses were in place during the trial. Petitions fail. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 5th May, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKIISY AJY SENT: MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR MR. JUSTICE SAY Y ED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQW ONNO 577 OF 2021 (Against the order dated 20- 04.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Crl.M.No.535 B12021) Mst. Lubna Bibi Petitioner(s) VERS Azhar Javed Abbasi and another . . . Respondent(s) For the petitioner(s): Syeda Hifza Bukhari, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State.. Mirza M. Usman, AddLP.a Date of Hearing 11.11.2 02 1 ORDER SA ED MAZAHAR ALl A.KBAR NAQVI, j.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent in case FIR No.702120 dated 10.12.2020 under Sections 337A(ii)1337A(iv)11471149 PPC registered at police Station Murree, District Rawalpindi by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. As per the crime report, it is alleged that on 03.12.2020 at about 08:30 a.m. the respondent along with co-accused assaulted the complainant party and caused injuries to Mst. Nazash Bibi, Asim, Mst. Talat Bibi and Mst. Lubna Bibi (petitioner). The role attributed to the petitioner is that he inflicted knuckle duster blow on the nose of Asim injured flit. - CrLP.No.577of2021 -: 2 :- 3. At the very outset, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Contends that the respondent is ascribed the role of causing injury which falls within the ambit of Section 337A(vi) PPC which falls within the prohibitory clause and as such the bail granting order is devoid of any legal sanctity. Further contends that the respondent has been extended extra-ordinary relief which is not made out from the material on record and as such the order passed by the High Court is based upon artificial findings, which are perverse and fanciful. Lastly contends that the report of the doctor who examined the injury at the first instance has to be given preference over any other opinion. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment reported as Muhammad Ejaz Vs. The State and another (2021 SCMR 387). 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with her assistance. Primarily the concern of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has been extended the premium of pre-arrest bail which is a rare commodity and it has to be extended sparingly. Perusal of the record reveals that the injury ascribed to the respondent falls within the purview of Section 33 7A(iv) PPC which entails punishment upto 10 years, as such it falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P. C. The doctor who examined the injured PWfound that there was no possibility of any fabrication depending upon the report of the Radiologist. However, Medical Board was constituted vide No.4 73/DSMB/ Y .No. 09/2020/DHQ Hospital, Rawalpindi dated 01.02.2021. The said Medical Board was constituted in pursuance of a notification issued by the Government of Punjab bearing No.SO(H&D)6-1190 dated 12.02.1990. The said notification was circulated to all District Magistrates in the Province. In continuation of the above said notification, another notification was issued bearing No. SO(H&D)5- 5/2 002 was also issued. According to the said notification, a "Three Tier Structure" for the conduction of medico legal work has been established, which reads as under:- CrLP.No.577 of 2021 -: 3 "a) FIRST TIER The initial medico legal examination shall be carried out by the Medical Officers/Women Medical Officers at the Rural Health Centres, Tehsil Headquarters Hospitals, District Headquarters Hospitals and at Teaching Hospitals. b) SECOND TIER The District Standing Medical Boards, comprising the following, shall act as first appellate authority in all the 34 districts of Punjab: Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital Chairman District Officer Health Member Surgeon Member These Boards will conduct re-examination if the decision of the first medico legal examiner is challenged and also for examination of alleged cases of Police torture. For District Lahore District Standing Medical Board will be established at Government Mian Muhammad Munshi, DHQ Hospital-I. C) THIRD TIER The role of Surgeon Medico legal, the Punjab shall only be Appellate and Supervisory. He shall be the Chairman of Provincial Standing Medical Board, which shall be the final appellate authority against the decisions of District Standing Medical Boards. Other Members of the Provincial Standing Medical Board (PSMB) will be the Associate/Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine of the Regional Medical College and the Medical Superintendent of one of the attached Teaching Hospital. The Board can co-opt any other member when required." The hierarchy of the medical examination as notified by the Health Department clearly reflects that against the opinion of the initial medical officer, the Medical Board will be constituted. Prior to the constitution of the said Medical Board, a judicial order has to be passed by the magisterial Court. According to the Medical Board, as mentioned above, the injured PW was re-examined by four doctors including Medical Superintendent, fully equipped with knowledge and expertise and also better in experience than the earlier expert who examined the injured PW soon after the occurrence. The argument of the learned counsel by relying upon the judgment Muhammad B/az Vs. The State and another (2021 SCMR 387) that preference has to be given to the earlier examination because of the reason that medical officer being the first expert to examine the injury, his finding has to be preferred over the Medical Board. We respectfully differ with the finding because of the reason that the expert's opinion dependents upon so many factors including, physical examination, qualification, experience and finally collective (JrLYJVO.b(t' of 2021 -: 4 wisdom of the members of the Board. In a similar situation, in the judgment reported as Hussain Vs. The State (1968 P Cr. L J 167) this Court laid down the following law:- "The High Court has preferred the evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmad in view of his higher qualifications, particularly, since he too had examined the wounds through a magnifying glass and did not find the two injuries, with which we are now concerned, to be either clean cut or sharp-edged injuries. The possibility of an error being made by the doctor of the Rural Dispensary as to the nature of the injuries cannot be ruled out, for, it is no unlikely for an injury caused by a blunt weapon on a bony prominence to appear as a clean cut wound to an inexperienced person who has not acquired sufficient skill in carrying out postmortem examination. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the opinion of the doctor at the Rural Dispensary was wrongly not preferred over that of the doctor who performed the post- mortem examination by the High Court. The post-mortem, it is true, was held on the 25th September 1964, at 7 a. m. but this was not such a long period after as to completely alter the nature of the injury and transform an incised wound into a contused wound." Otherwise, logically speaking, if the argument of the learned counsel that the opinion of the first medical officer has to be given precedence over the other, it does not appeal to reason because the hierarchy of the system will fall to ground. It is not out of context to express that hierarchy ofjudicial system starts from the court offirst instance upto the Supreme Court. The findings of the highest court has to prevail over the others, and even are binding under Article 189 of the Constitution. If the finding of the hierarchy of first instance is to be given precedence, that would frustrate the whole system. We have minutely observed the report of the Medical Board which is available at page (17) of the paper-book. In the report of the Medical Board, which comprised of four senior doctors having superior qualification and experience, it has been observed that "after having gone through examination the Board is of unanimous opinion that regarding injury No. 1, the possibility of fabrication cannot be ruled out". It is established law that when there is conflict LrLPIVO.Sff of 2021 -: 5 :- in opinions of the medical experts, the expert having better qualification, insight, experience, and more particularly the joint consensus of the members richly equipped has more weightage, hence it has to be given precedence over the first examination conducted by a junior doctor, especially when members of Board while examining in the Board are four in number, whereas the first doctor who examined the injury at the first instance was only a single member assigned the duty to examine the injured person. 5. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused. Islamabad, the 11 II%Jovember, 2021 A pproved for reporting Waqas Naseer/ *

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.591 of 2020 (Against the order dated 05.06.2020 in Cr.M. (BA) 229-M/2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Minhora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat Sheqab Muhammad .…Petitioner(s) Versus The State and others ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, ASC For the State: Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC with Samiullah, SHO and Abdul Kamal, I.O. For the Complainant: In person Date of hearing: 07.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Petitioner is amongst the array of accused, blamed to have murderously assaulted the PWs at 9:10 a.m. on 10.4.2020 within the precincts of Police Station Himmat Khan Shaheen Kalangi, District Malakand, in the backdrop of a dispute over immovable property; fire shot attributed to the petitioner is confirmed by a medico legal certificate. 2. Heard. 3. Arguments that ocular account stands contradicted by medical evidence and in the absence of an independent witness from the public, petitioner’s general participation, resulting into an injury on a non-vital part of the body, particularly in the absence of repeated fire shot, squarely brings his case within the remit of further probe, are not only beside the mark but also cannot be attended without undertaking an in-depth analysis of the prosecution case, an exercise forbidden by law at bail stage. In a daylight affair, two persons sustained firearm injuries besides the one having endured violence through blunt means and as such requires no public Criminal Petition Nos.591 of 2020 2 support to drive home the charge; their statements supported by medical examinations of even date, cumulatively bring petitioner’s case prima facie within the mischief of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, he cannot be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code ibid. Similarly, murderous assault as defined in the section ibid draws no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of human body. Once the triggered is pressed and the victim is effectively targeted, “intention or knowledge” as contemplated by the section ibid is manifested; the course of a bullet is not controlled or steered by assailant’s choice nor can he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship. Exercise of discretion by the High Court being well within the bounds of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 7th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.594 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 15.5.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Crl. M./BA No.1227-P/2020) Jehanzab Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus The State through A.G. KPK & others …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Syed Iqbal Hassan Shah Gillani, ASC with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC with Momin, I.O. For the Complainant: Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC along with complainant. Date of hearing: 09.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Jahanzeb Khan, petitioner herein, seeks admission to post arrest bail; he had allegedly issued two bank cheques to Masood-ur-Rehman complainant in the sums of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.97,00,000/-, respectively, bounced upon presentation; after arrest, he was released on bail by a learned Magistrate vide order dated 27.12.2019 on the basis of an Iqrarnama, purporting clearance of substantial portion of the default; the complainant disputed genuineness of the instrument, in view whereof, a learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail vide order dated 27.2.2020; motion to secure bail failed in the High Court vide order dated 15.5.2020, vires whereof, are being assailed herein. 2. Heard. 3. It would be inexpedient to attend factual divergence over the impugned arrangement that appears to have paved petitioner’s way for his release on bail at the magisterial forum through a negotiated settlement though retracted subsequently, a circumstance resulting into cancellation Criminal Petition No.594 of 2020 2 thereof; it appears to have weighed with the High Court to decline the request as well. Judicial discretion in bail matters is by now clearly contoured. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court may decline the request even in cases falling outside the remit of prohibition, however, exercise of judicial authority cannot be abandoned to relegate in subservience to the arrangements inter se the parties for the disposal of bail petitions nor the corporal coercion can be allowed to extract swift settlements or concessions in lieu of a promised freedom. Grant of bail cannot be subjected to riders and conditions, if otherwise, a case stands made out. In criminal dispensation of justice, the Court being an independent adjudicator at all stages must religiously maintain its neutrality without having any responsibility to the either side; it is more important in cases involving recoveries and retrievals for the complainant, designed to be effected through plenary modes and procedures other than criminal prosecution. Deviation off the beaten path would throw normal statutory arrangements to the wind, therefore, petitioner’s release and his subsequent arrest on the basis of an abortive/disputed arrangement fail to commend our approval. 4. Adverting to the petitioner’s case, though there is a reference to issuance of bank cheques and their failure on the bank counter, nonetheless, details of financial obligation in satisfaction whereof the instruments were purportedly issued is conspicuously missing in the crime report. Substantial amounts notwithstanding, nonetheless, offence complained is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine or with both and as such does not attract the statutory bar. Petitioner’s continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy for punishment. A case for petitioner’s release on bail stands made out. Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; the petitioner shall be released on furnishing bonds in the sum of rupees one million with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Magistrate. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 9th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 596-L OF 2022 (Against the judgment dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr. Appeal No. 75142/2019) Atta ul Mustafa …Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Muhammad Sohail dar, ASC (Via video link from Lahore) For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Punjab Date of Hearing: 11.08.2023 JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner along with co-accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 269/2018 under Sections 376-II/337-J PPC at Police Station Neikapura, Sialkot for committing zina with the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 19.11.2019 while acquitting the co-accused, convicted the under Section 376 PPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. He was also directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- or in default whereof to further undergo two months SI. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner. In appeal the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Trial Court. 2. The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment reads as under:- “2. As per story narrated by the complainant Mst. Azmat Sultan in her written application EX.P.B, 8/10 months ago, accused Ata Mustafa came to her house and requested her to resolve the dispute between his father and mother as she deal with social welfare work. Then she went to the house of Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 -: 2 :- accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa on his request where she met three ladies namely Samina, mother of accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa and Aisha and Khadija, sisters of accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa who caused to drink her some intoxicated juice and after that she became unconscious. Thereafter complainant was shown a blue film which was captured by accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa after administering her intoxicating liquid. Thereafter accused Ata-ul-Mustafa kept on blackmailing and threatening the complainant, and used to obtain money from her on different occasions. On 08.05.2018 at about 3/4:00 p.m, complainant called accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa on mobile phone and requested him to delete her video and pictures as she is having a family. On the same day at about 9:00 p.m, accused called the complainant outside and with the assurance of deleting the video and pictures, took her to his house on a Rickshaw and again administered intoxicating juice to her and accused persons Ata-Ul-Mustafa and Habib committed rape with the complainant one by one. When complainant gained conscious she found herself in Civil Hospital, Sialkot. Then complainant narrated whole story to her son and brother-in-law, and also informed the police for taking action.” 3. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced seven witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled against him. However, he did not opt to appear as his own witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of the allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any document in his defence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/convict contended that the prosecution case is based on whims and surmises and it has to prove its case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to do so. Contends that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner except the solitary statement of the victim. Contends that the medical evidence did not corroborate the stance of the victim. Lastly contends that the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the petitioner are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set at naught. 5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment. He contended that there is no material contradiction in the prosecution evidence and the prosecution has proved its case Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 -: 3 :- beyond any shadow of doubt by producing convincing evidence, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their able assistance. 7. In the present case, the complainant/victim Azmat Sultana, who appeared as PW-5 is the star witness of the prosecution. In her deposition, she reiterated her stance as narrated in the crime report and alleged the petitioner and his co-accused to have committed rape with her. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to solely rely on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault to convict the accused. However, the strict condition for this is that the same shall reflect that it is independent, unbiased and straightforward to establish the accusation against the accused and if the court finds it difficult to accept victim’s version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. In the present case, we have noted that the victim Mst. Azmat Sultana was 49 years of age while the petitioner was a young lad of 20 years old at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Although it is not impossible that a twenty years old boy cannot commit zina with such an older woman but the story told by the victim is not plausible. According to her, the petitioner’s mother and his two sisters gave her some intoxicating drink, which made her unconscious and during this period, the petitioner and his friend committed rape with her. It is generally seen in our society that no matter how morally bad one is, he cannot do such kind of act in front of his mother and sisters. On our specific query, learned Law Officer admitted that the story narrated by the victim does not appeal to reason to the mind of a prudent man. In such circumstances, this Court is duty bound to weigh the other materials and evidence on record to come to the conclusion on guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. The victim was examined by Dr. Ayesha Aman (PW-1) and as she was admittedly a Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 -: 4 :- married lady, therefore, medico legal report showing her hymen to be old ruptured was inconsequential. The blood sample of the victim was taken and sent to Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic toxicology and according to the Forensic Toxicology Analysis Report, “Alprazolam” was detected in her blood. Alprazolam is used to treat anxiety and panic disorder. The same is in a class of medications called ‘benzodiazepines’ and it works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain. It seems the victim was a patient of depression and she had some mental problems. The victim had leveled a specific allegation of intoxicating material being administered to her but neither anything containing intoxicating material was recovered nor any intoxicating material was found in her blood in the medico legal report. A bare perusal of record reflects that the victim had lodged a similar kind of case against another person but the same ended in compromise later on. This conduct of the victim adversely reflects on her credibility and does not require a flattering commentary. There is no denial to this fact that DNA test report revealed that possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner is the contributor of the semen detected on the vaginal swabs of the victim. It shows that the DNA report is not conclusive and certain about the guilt of the petitioner. The victim had leveled allegation of rape against two persons but according to the report of PFSA the co-accused of the petitioner was eliminated as being the contributor of male DNA. This means that whatever the victim said was not entirely true. Even otherwise, the DNA report cannot be treated as primary evidence and can only be relied upon for the purposes of corroboration and as stated above the evidence of the victim is not of such character, which can solely be relied upon to sustain conviction of the petitioner. When all the above-narrated circumstances are juxtaposed i.e. the implausible stance of the victim, her lodging of similar kind of case against another person and then patching up the matter after receiving hefty amount and the dubious DNA test report, it makes the prosecution case not free from doubt. These are the dents, which are so grave and sensational that they are squarely hampering the authenticity of the prosecution case. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate its case. Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 -: 5 :- 8. Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to punish an accused. It is an established principle of law and equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person should not suffer. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitles the petitioner to the right of benefit of the doubt. It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. Reliance is placed on Mst. Asia Bibi Vs. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) and Abdul Jabbar vs. State (2019 SCMR 129). The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. 9. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail unless detained/required in any other case. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 11th of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED Criminal Petition No.6-P of 2015 (Against the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar ul Qaza) Swat in Cr. A. No.2-m/2013) State through A.G. KP, Peshawar …Petitioner Versus Hakim Zada, etc. ..Respondent For the Petitioner(s): Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Addl. A.G. KP For the Respondent(s): N.R. Date of hearing: 8.7.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J-. Respondent was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Matta, Swat for committing Qatl-i- Amd of Mst. Rekhma, no other than his better half; he himself reported the incident to the police on 28.6.2012, alleging suicide, turned out as homicide during investigation; upon indictment, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 13.12.2012, however, a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench considering the death as suicidal acquitted him from the charge vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2014, vires whereof, are being assailed, primarily, on the ground that autopsy report conclusively ruled out possibility of suicide as the medical officer noted a complete scar, without obliquity, around the neck, unambiguously suggesting manual constriction of the neck with a ligature, a circumstance that escaped notice by the High Court and, thus, clamours for explanation from the respondent with whom she spent her last moments under the same roof. Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, the above contention with Cr.P.6-P/2015 2 a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for the respondents through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar, to be executed by the Station House Officer, within a fortnight. Judge Judge Peshawar, 8th July, 2021 Azmat/- ‘Not approved for reporting’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE AMIN- UD-DIN KHAN MR. JUSTICE SAY Y ED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI CfA) CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 601-L OF 2021 (Against the order dated 15.07.2020 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Misc. No. 27091-B/2020) Zafar Iqbal Petitioner(s) Versus The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another .Respondent(s) For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhtar Nawaz Raja, ASC For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl.P. U. For the Complainant: Mr. Sarfraz Khan Gondal, ASC Date of Hearing: 18.11.2 02 1 r ORDER SAYYED MAZAHA4R ALl AKBA.R NAQVI, J.- This petition is barred by 248 days. In normal circumstances the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay are not taken into consideration, but keeping in view the facts and circumstance of this particular case, we, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice, condone the delay of 248 days in filing the petition. 2. Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15. 07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore with a prayer to grant post- arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 188 dated 08.07.2019 under Sections 30213411471109 PPC at Police Station Mela, District Sargodha in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. I I CRIMINAL PETIT!ON NO. 601-L 0P2021 -. 2 3. As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused inflicted sota blows on the person of Azhar Iqbal deceased whereas the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he gave sota blow which landed on the left eye of deceased which was contributory in nature which was result of his death. 4. At the very outset it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegation against the petitioner that he caused injury to the deceased is not substantiated from any material which could be made basis for declining prayer of the petitioner. Contends that the occurrence has taken place at the odd hours of the night and the presence of the prosecution witnesses at that particular time does not appeal to reason. Contends that during the course of investigation, it transpired that the deceased had entered into the house of the petitioner with the intent to commit rape with the young daughter of the petitioner aged about 15116 years. Contends that though the petitioner is found guilty during the course of investigation but at the same time trespassing the house of a law abiding citizen warrants reactionary response which ultimately proved fatal. Contends that according to the medical report, the cause of death is pulmonic failure and as such the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail as the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P. C. 5. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Law Officer, assisted by the learned counsel for complainant, that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report. He is specifically ascribed injury No.1 which proved fatal towards the death. Contends that six prosecution witnesses have been recorded and as such the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail. Learned Law Officer frankly conceded that during the course of investigation, the finding of the Investigating Officer is that the deceased has entered into the house of the petitioner in the midnight S I C CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 601-i OF 2023 -:3:- with intent to commit rape with the daughter of the petitioner which act was ultimately retaliated causing death of the deceased. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is salutary principle of law that each criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and has to be decided according to the peculiar facts surfaced on the record. There is no denial to this fact that according to the contents of the crime report, the petitioner is stated to be armed with sota who gave injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased which was seen by the prosecution witnesses. The said injury was subsequently found contributory, however, during the course of investigation, the contents of the crime report were found contradicted and entirely different story was surfaced on the record. The Investigating Officer gave a definite finding of fact that the deceased Azhar Iqbal had illicit intimacy with the daughter of the petitioner and he on that occasion with an intent to fulfill his lust trespassed into the house of the petitioner, where he was overseen by the male members of the family resulting into torture which proved fatal. There are certain very specific reasons to entertain the petition in hand. It is difficult to digest that the prosecution witnesses, mentioned in the crime report, were actually present over there at the odd hours of the night to observe the occurrence as given in the crime report. Further whether at that odd hour of the night, the attempt of the deceased to trespass in the house was bona fide at his part which ultimately resulted into his death. All these queries when juxtaposed with the liberty of a person who was forced to indulge into the crime, if any, the latter is more precious as per the dictates of justice. Otherwise in suchlike cases, the analogy can be drawn from the statutory law prevalent in United Kingdom called "Homicide Act, 1957" wherein if a crime is committed due to mental or psychological compulsion, it squarely falls within the ambit of diminished liability. It is a legal doctrine that absolves an accused person of part of the liability for his criminal act if he suffers from such abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his responsibility in Committing or being a party CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 601 -L OF 2021 -:4:- to an alleged criminal act, which is committed under the impulses of question of ghairat, the doctrine of diminished liability would be squarely attracted providing mitigation/ defence to avail the same in suchlike cases, otherwise in ordinary circumstances the commencement of trial itself is a sufficient ground to decline the prayer of the petitioner, but in the instant case there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is a case of further inquiry entitling for the concession of bail wherein Section 497(4) Cr.P. C. can be pressed into to do complete justice which is attire of this Court. 7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,0001- with one surety in the li/ye amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. Lahore, the 18 of November, 2021 Approved for reporting Waqas Naseer/

In the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, HCJ Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Criminal Petition No.604 of 2015. (on appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 29.7.2015, passed in Crl. Misc No.4327-B/2015) Nisar Ahmed …Petitioner Versus The State, etc … Respondents For the petitioner: Mr. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, ASC. Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. Respondents: N.R. Date of hearing: 08.9.2015 JUDGMENT Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J.- Petitioner is one of the nominated accused in crime No.324/2012, dated 08.12.2012, P.S Shahkot, District Sahiwal, registered under sections 302, 324, 337- A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 148, 149 PPC with the allegations that he alongwith nine other co-accused, while forming an unlawful assembly, committed qatl-i-amd of Yasir Abbas and caused injuries to three other persons. The petitioner was assigned specific role of causing fatal injury to the deceased. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 14.1.2013 and since then he is stated to be in custody. The first bail application moved him before the Lahore High Court, being criminal miscellaneous No.2148-B Crl.P-604/2015. 2 of 2014, was dismissed on 04.6.2014; his second bail application, being criminal miscellaneous No.1735-B/2015 was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2015 and the third bail application, being criminal miscellaneous No.3819-B/2015, was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.6.2015. In this manner, as it appears from the case record, criminal Misc. No.4327-B/2015 was the fourth bail application, which was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned order dated 29.7.2015. 3. We have heard the arguments of learned ASC for the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail, as compliance of the directions issued by the High Court in its orders dated 04.6.2014 and 15.5.2015, regarding expeditious disposal of the criminal case against the petitioner, has not been made and further filing of direct complaint by respondent No.2 has furnished a fresh ground to the petitioner to move another bail application. 4. We have scanned the material placed on record and are unable to subscribe to such submissions of the learned ASC. Neither non-compliance of the directions issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously or within some specified time can be considered as valid ground for grant of bail to an accused, being alien to the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C, nor filing of direct complaint will have any bearing as regards earlier bail refusing orders, which have attained finality, unless some fresh ground could be shown by Crl.P-604/2015. 3 the petitioner for consideration of his request for grant of bail afresh, which is lacking in the present case. 5. This being the position, leave is refused and this petition is dismissed. Islamabad, 08th September, 2015. Not approved for reporting. ﺖﻗاﺪﺻ Judge Judge Judge

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.606 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 15.05.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr.M.BA. No.1276-P/2020) Dad Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus The State ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Neelam A. Khan, ASC For the State: Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Special Prosecutor, ANF along with Shamim Raza, SI Date of hearing: 31.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- An Anti Narcotic Force contingent, on a tip off, intercepted Rahem Taj accused in the departure lounge of Bacha Khan International Airport, while boarding a Saudi Arabia bound flight with a substantial quantity of Methamphetamine, a lethal narcotic substance. As the investigation progressed, the petitioner was taken on board as being part of the cartel behind the consignment; he had allegedly booked a room in a local hotel where the accused, three in number, stayed the night preceding the flight and it was on account of this overnight stay that the investigating officer held him privy to the crime alongside others. 2. Heard. 3. We have examined the available record that depicts the petitioner to have booked a room in a local hotel wherein the three accused statedly stayed together. The learned Law Officer for the Anti Narcotic Force has not been able to point out any material to confirm presence of the principal accused with the petitioner except for latter’s statement recorded during custody nor there is any data available with the prosecution to Criminal Petition No.606 of 2020 2 establish petitioner’s presence at or around the airport before departure of the flight, therefore, for the present, petitioner’s culpability as an abettor, aiding the crime in association with the principal offender, within the contemplation of section 14 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 so as to attract the bar provided under section 51 thereof, warrants further probe; a case for his release on bail stands made out. Criminal Petition No.606 of 2020 is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner/appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 31st August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.60 of 2017 (Against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.562- P/2015) Inhaf Ullah …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Astaghfarullah, ASC For the State: Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, ASC Date of hearing: 07.04.2021. JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Atique, 6/7, was playing outside his house, located within the precincts of Police Station Bhana Marri, Peshawar on 16.10.2014; at 4:00 p.m, he took a bottle of water from his house to serve a passerby whereafter he vanished from the scene; according to the prosecution, he was whisked away in an alto car; the incident was reported same day by his brother Muhammad Aamir (PW-3); he also informed his father who was in China on a business trip and rushed back to join search for the child; after 3/4 days of the occurrence, an unknown person delivered fruit in two shopping bags to the complainant, purportedly sent by his father’s friend Tariq; the fruit carried a chit bearing a cell phone number and a message about the captivity of the child with the dispatcher. The complainant handed over the chit to his father Umar Khan (PW-2). The family contacted the captors on phone who demanded Rs.2 crore as ransom, finally settled as Rs.800,000/-, paid at the designated place in lieu of abductee’s release on 22.10.2014. As the investigation progressed, Inhafullah, Shahid, Musharaf Khan, Alif Khan, Shahzad Gul, Atlas alias Aslat and Asad Ullah were taken on board as accused; Inhaafullah petitioner, in response to a court question, was identified by Umar Khan (PW-2) as recipient of the Criminal Petition No.60 of 2017 2 ransom. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 21.09.2015 proceeded to convict all the accused under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life; on appeal, the Peshawar High Court, barring the petitioner, acquitted all the accused from the charge vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2010, vires whereof, are being assailed on a variety of grounds. It is argued that neither the complainant nor his father named or identified the petitioner in their examination-in-chief and it was in pursuance to a question prompted by the Court that Umar Khan (PW-2) reluctantly pointed his finger upon the petitioner, for the first time in the Court; according to the learned counsel, there was no occasion for the learned Judge to put Court question to a witness undergoing examination-in-chief to the detriment of the petitioner; that a different vehicle other than the one used in the occurrence was recovered, that too, upon the disclosure of a co-accused, since acquitted, and, thus, mere recovery of ransom amount statedly upon petitioner’s disclosure without any identification mark is hardly sufficient to sustain the charge. Acquittal of six out of seven co-accused brought the entire edifice to the ground, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Abduction of a small child for ransom is a most serious offence and it is hard to expect that a family would come up with a fake script, nonetheless, in the present case, we have noted glaring flaws and discrepancies that cannot be possibly ignored on a perceptional paradigm. According to the complainant, the incident had occurred on 16.10.2014 and reported same day in the absence of his father, present in China looking after some trade assignment, however, according to the latter, upon receipt of information, he rushed back and when the incident was reported on 19.10.2014. The discrepancy may be viewed as human error inasmuch as according to the record, the First Information Report was recorded on 16.10.2014, nonetheless, arrival of a massage demanding ransom through an unknown person categorically claiming to have been dispatched by one Tariq without any reaction or response, in those testing hours, fails to inspire confidence. Similarly, without intervention of police, payment of ransom to the petitioner and immediate release of the child are circumstances no less intriguing either. No test identification parade was carried out to qualify the standard of proof within the contemplation of Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Similarly, petitioner’s identification, with handcuffs in the dock, through intervention of the Criminal Petition No.60 of 2017 3 Presiding Judge fails to commend our approval. The Court bears no responsibility either for the prosecution or the defence; it must maintain its neutrality to decide a case on the strength of evidence alone, essentially to be adduced by the prosecution itself to drive home the charge. No doubt, the trial Court is vested with ample authority to put questions to the witness, however, the power of this amplitude must be exercised with caution and circumspection, solely in aid of justice without disturbing equality in the scales; in the present case, incessant interventions by the trial Judge has grievously undermined testimony of a witness, otherwise mute and reticent on a fundamental detail of the case. Acquittal of six out of seven accused, though assigned different roles, nonetheless, equally blamed to have aided the crime, leaves nothing in the field. It would be unsafe to maintain the conviction Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment is set aside; the appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained by law. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 7th April, 2021 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.610 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 21.5.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Misc. No.20425-B/2020) Muhammad Noman Munir …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Syed Qamar Hussain Sabzwari, ASC For the Respondent(s): N.R. Date of hearing: 10.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Surprised at 12:30 p.m. on 23.1.2020 by a contingent of Police Station Kotwali Sialkot, Muhammad Noman Munir, petitioner herein, was found in possession of cannabis weighed as 1380 grams with a lethal combination of 07 grams of heroin; courts below declined his request for admission to bail. Submissions at the bar range from absence of a witness from the public to a quantity bordering slightly beyond the volume covered by section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. 2. Heard. 3. 1380 grams of cannabis with 07 grams of heroin squarely fall within the mischief of the section ibid that attracts prohibition embodied in section 51 of the Act ibid and as such the argument being presumptuous is beside the mark. Insofar as non-association of a witness from the public is concerned, people collected at the scene, despite request abstained to assist the law and it is so mentioned in the crime report itself, a usual conduct symptomatic of societal apathy towards civic responsibilities. Criminal Petition No.610 of 2020 2 Even otherwise, the members of the contingent being functionaries of the State are second to none in their status, with their acts statutorily presumed, prima facie, as intra vires. Refusal by the Courts below being well within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 10th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 611-L OF 2023 (On appeal against the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 35337-B/2023) Abdul Rehman … Petitioner Versus The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Dhuddi, ASC a/w petitioner (Through video link from Lahore) For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Abdul Maalik, SI Mr. Idrees Afzal, SHO Date of Hearing: 11.08.2023 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 12/2023 dated 18.01.2023 under Sections 447/427/511/109/148/149 PPC (Sections 435 & 506 PPC added subsequently) at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused plowed and destroyed the wheat crop of the complainant and also set his millet crop on fire. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that there is a delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been put forth by the complainant. Contends that the land, which is the root cause of the Criminal Petition No. 611-L/2023 2 occurrence, does not belong to the complainant and a civil litigation is pending between the parties. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner has specifically been nominated in the crime report with a specific role, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their able assistance. 6. As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused plowed and destroyed the wheat crop of the complainant and also set his millet crop on fire. However, it is the stance of the petitioner that the land in question is owned and possessed by him and a civil litigation regarding the same is also pending before the court of competent jurisdiction. It seems that the primary dispute between the parties is with regard to the ownership/possession of the land in question. In this view of the matter, the possibility of false implication just to pressurize the petitioner’s side to gain ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. However, at this stage, we do not want to comment on this aspect of the matter, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the party. The crime report was lodged after a delay of 62 days for which the complainant did not utter a single word. In the crime report, only a general role has been ascribed to the petitioner and his six co-accused. We have been informed that two co- accused of the petitioner, who were specifically nominated in the crime report, have been declared innocent during investigation. Even otherwise, we have been informed by the learned Law Officer that all the seven accused have been ascribed the role of jointly causing a loss of about Rs.100,000/- to the complainant. It is settled law that liberty of a person is a precious right, which has been guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and the same cannot be taken away merely on bald and vague allegations. So far as ‘criminal intimidation’ is concerned, the same has been defined in Section 503 PPC. A bare perusal of this provision of law makes it clear that whenever an overt act is materialized and ended into an Criminal Petition No. 611-L/2023 3 overt act, the provision of Section 506 PPC would not be applicable and the only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act, which is committed in consequence of criminal intimidation. Similarly, the question of applicability of Section 511 PPC, which is applied only where the prosecution is not certain about the offences, would also be resolved by the learned Trial Court. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt. 7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2023. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 11th of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALl MAZHAR MR. JUSTICE SHAHID WAHEED CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 614 & 618 OF 2017 (On appeal against the judgment dated 3103.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 228 & 28412012 and Murder Reference No, 43/2012) (1) Muhammad Iqbal, (2) Maqsood Ahmed, (3) Mehram Khan, (4) Muhammad Jaffar, (5) Muhammad Shoaib, (6) Lal Khan and (7) Mumtaz Shafqat Hussain (complainant) (In Cr.P. 614/2017) (In Cr.P. 618/2017) Petitioners VERSUS The State and another (In Cr.P. 614/2011) Muhammad Iqbal and others (In Cr.P. 618/2017) Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Basharatullah Khan, ASC (In cr. p. 61412017) Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, ASC (In Cr.P. 618/2017) For the State: Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. Date of Hearing: 30.11.2022 JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR All AKBAR NAQVI. J.- Petitioners along with two co- accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal, pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 196 dated 29.07.2009 under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC at Police Station Saddar, Talagang, District Chakwal for committing murder of Muhammad Aslam and Altaf Hussain and for causing injuries to lftikhar Ahmed, Ulfat Haider and Sher Ahmed. 2. After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court seized of CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 614 & 618 OF 2011 2 the matter framed charge against nine accused under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC. The learned Trial Court while framing the charge specifically mentioned that all the accused while forming an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object have committed the crime wherein two persons lost their lives while three sustained injuries and, as such, committed an offence falling under Section 149 PPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as sixteen witnesses. On the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused persons got recorded their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations leveled against them. They did not opt to appear as witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 to disprove the allegations. However, they produced some documents in their defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 15.05.2012, while acquitting two co-accused Nawab Khan and Mumtaz, convicted the petitioners as under:- 1) Muhammad lgbal and Macisood Ahmed u/s 302(b) PPC Sentenced to death along with compensation of Rs.300,000/- payable to legal heirs of Haji Muhammad Aslarn and Altaf Hussain, deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue. In default whereof, they shall suffer six months SI. u/s 148 PPC Sentenced to suffer 2 years RI each. 2) Mehram Khan and Muhammad Jaffar U/s 324 PPC Sentenced to suffer three years RI. U/s 148 PPC Sentenced to suffer 2 years RI each. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.0 3) Muhammad Shoaib, Lai Khan and Mumtaz U/s 148 PPC Sentenced to suffer 2 years RI. They were also held entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC. 3. The petitioners challenged their conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 228/2012 before the learned Lahore High Court. The complainant also filed Criminal Appeal No. 284/2012 challenging the acquittal of the two co- CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 614 & 618 OF 2017 3 accused and seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to five co-accused. The learned Trial Court also sent Murder Reference No. 43/2012 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. In appeal, the learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners Muhammad lqbal and Maqsood Ahmed under Section 302(b) PPC, altered the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. The remaining sentences to the extent of compensation awarded to them by the learned Trial Court was maintained. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-8 Cr.P,C. So far as the remaining petitioners namely Mehram Khan, Ghulam Jaffar (Muhammad Jaffar), Muhammad Shoaib, Lal Khan and Mumtaz are concerned, their sentence was modified to the extent of the sentence which they had already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- payable by each accused to the injured. Hence, these petitions seeking leave to appeal. 4. During the course of proceedings before this Court, a query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioners/convicts qua the legality of the judgments rendered by the Trial Court as well as the High Court wherein the Trial Court while taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances found the accusation against the petitioners established through confidence inspiring evidence and as such convicted them under Sections 302/324/148 PPC on the basis of individual liability ascribed to them. It is astonishing aspect of the case that despite of the fact that all the accused including the petitioners before us were charged under Section 148/149 PPC but while deciding us the aspect of 'common object' was squarely ignored and the conviction and sentence was recorded quite surprisingly on the basis of individual role. Similarly the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal of the petitioners did not bother to pay attention to the illegality committed by the Trial Court and dealt each accused on the basis of individual liability. S. This Court in a recent judgment reported as Bashir Ahmed Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1187) while elaborately discussing the penal provisions has held as under:- "13. A careful analysis of the aforesaid categories falling under the provision of Section 302 PPC abundantly makes it clear that the provision of Section 302(a) PPC is a distinct provision having different mode and manner of application with different CRIMINAL PERTION NOs. 614 & 618 OF 2017 considerations exclusively derived from the Islamic judicial system. The proceeding under the aforesaid provision is a rare phenomenon whereas the majority of the cases dealt with by the courts below fall under Section 302(b) PPC. As stated above, provision of Section 302(b) PPC provides two sentences i.e. death, (ii) imprisonment for life. Murder cases exclusively falling within the ambit of Section 302(b) PPC would be dealt with in a manner exclusively depending upon the number of assailants. Undeniably a single assailant can commit the aforesaid offence but if the number of assailants is more than one and the offence is committed in furtherance of common intention then the provision of Section 34 PPC would certainly attract. Similar to that if the tally of the accused is five or more and the offence is committed in furtherance of common object then the provision of Sections 148/149 PPC would be applicable. The learned Trial Court seized of the matter depending upon the number of accused has to render a definite finding qua the applicability of Section 34 PPC (common intention) or Sections 148/149 PPC (common object). These two legal aspects are to be addressed with the application of the aforesaid provision of Section 302(b) PPC depending upon the number of assailants. It is bounden duty of the courts below to ascertain the aspect of common intention or common object primarily at the time of framing of the charge on the basis of contents of FIR, statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C, if any, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.0 and other attending documents collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The Trial Court is equally responsible to give a definite finding qua the applicability of Section 34 PPC or Sections 148/149 PPC at the time of conclusion of the trial while handing down the judgment. Now adverting to the moot point which was raised during the proceedings that if anybody is found guilty of commission of offence attracting the provision of Section 302(b) PPC, the co-accused can be saddled with the responsibility on the basis of individual liability or the whole occurrence has to be decided keeping in view that the offence was committed in furtherance of their common intention and the provision of Section 302(b) PPC would be applied conjointly against the persons joining hands falling under either of the categories i.e. common intention or common object falling under Section 34 or 148/149 PPC depending upon the number of persons facing charge, We may observe that any judgment which concludes the commission of offence falling under Section 302(b) PPC in furtherance o common intention or common object but decides the us on the basis of individual liability would be squarely in defiance of the intent and spirit of law on the subject." 6. The above view was upheld by this Court in Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State (PLO 2022 SC 523) and Jail Petition No. 344/2018 titled 'Muhammad Waheed Vs. The State'. A bare perusal of the afore-referred judgment of this Court makes it abundantly clear that while dealing with cases of qatl-i-amd as embodied under Section 300 PPC in chapter XVI of Pakistan CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 614 & 618 OF 2017 5 Penal Code, the Trial Court has to evaluate as to whether the act is committed in furtherance of common intention/object or on the basis of individual liability to press in the provision of Section 302(a)(b) or 302(c) PPC and it has to give a definite finding qua the same. Any judgment which concludes that the offence of qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) PPC was committed in furtherance of common intention or common object but the sentence is inflicted on the basis of individual liability, the same would be squarely in defiance of the intent and spirit of law on the subject. However, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the elements of common intention and common object have not been established, then each accused would be dealt with according to their individual role and severity of allegations and would be sentenced accordingly by the Court exercising its discretionary powers. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above, we convert these petitions into appeals, allow the same and set aside the judgments of both the courts below. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to re-write the judgment on the basis of available evidence after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. During the pendency of the us before the Trial Court, petitioners would be treated as under trial prisoners. Islamabad, the 30th of November, 2022 Approved For Reporting IllIIIir.11i

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.619 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 17.2.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Bail Petition No.56-P/2020) Aqal Khan .…Petitioner(s) Versus The State and another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hussain Ali, ASC For the State: Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC Muhammad Ilyas, I.O. For the Complainant: Mr. Riazat ul Haq, ASC Date of hearing: 03.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aqal Khan, petitioner herein, allegedly accompanied Meeran Jan, co-accused, no other than his real brother, attributed fatal shot to Maseet Khan deceased, at 9:00 a.m. on 09.11.2019, within the remit of Police Station Bara in the backdrop of a past feud; Courts below declined the request on his having been found in the community of intention with the co-accused, still away from law. It is alleged that the petitioner, after the incident, took away a pistol, carried by the deceased and got it recovered after his arrest, a circumstance that conclusively established his presence at the scene so as to stand disentitled to the concession of bail, no overt act notwithstanding. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. It would be less than expedient to comment upon the factual aspects/merits of the case, however, what is evident from the record is that during his, seemingly, unanticipated encounter with the deceased, the Criminal Petition No.619 of 2020 2 later was singularly targeted by the co-accused; first information report sans details of snatching of deceased’s gun by the petitioner and as such, circumstances cumulatively hovering over the incident, squarely brings petitioner’s case within the purview of sub-section 2 of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; a case for his admission to bail stands made out; he shall be so released upon furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/duty Judge; delay in filing of petition is condoned which is converted in to appeal and allowed. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 3rd August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Ghulam Raza/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 62-L OF 2023 (On appeal against the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 70185-B/2022) Muhammad Aziz @ Mana … Petitioner Versus The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Rana, ASC Mr. Tasneem Amin, AOR a/w petitioner in person (Via video link from Lahore) For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Nasir Abbas, DSP Mr. Amir Ahmed, SI Date of Hearing: 23.08.2023 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 914 dated 09.09.2022 under Sections 381/411 PPC at Police Station Factory Area, District Faisalabad, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime report is that 16 co-accused of the petitioner used to work in the factory of complainant wherein flags were used to be manufactured. The co-accused of the petitioner used to steal the prepared and printed flags and sell the same to the petitioner. The co-accused were caught red-handed by the complainant and other witnesses and it was found that a loss of about two and half crore has been caused to the complainant. Criminal Petition No. 62-L/2023 2 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and the prosecution story is not worthy of credit. Contends that all the co-accused including the principal accused have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment to be meted out. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner has specifically been nominated in the crime report with a specific role of causing huge loss to the complainant, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their able assistance. 6. As per the contents of the crime report, the co-accused of the petitioner used to work in the factory of complainant. Allegedly, they used to steal goods and sell the same to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the record depicts that the entire fraudulent transaction took place in a span of more than four years and no specific dates for commission of theft have been given. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of 13 days for which the complainant did not utter a single word. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he used to purchase the stolen articles from the co-accused. Admittedly, he was not employee of the complainant, therefore, the question of applicability of Section 381 PPC would be resolved by the learned Trial Court. We have been informed that all the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction. In these circumstances any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would be entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali Criminal Petition No. 62-L/2023 3 and others Vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424). The maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under Section 411 PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. Liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been involved in the case by throwing a wider net by the complainant. Mere allegation of causing huge loss is no ground to decline bail to an accused. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail. 7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 23rd of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.622 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No.19--B/2020) Imran Abbas …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Bushra Qamar, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the Respondent(s): Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi, Advocate General, Islamabad Capital Territory M. Sarfraz, SSP with Abdul Jabbar, I.O. Date of hearing: 10.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Maria Mughal, deceased, was done to death within the safety of her dwelling allegedly, by Imran Abbas, petitioner herein, no other than her former husband; her younger sister Ms. Talal Sahr witnessed the occurrence that occurred at 2:00 p.m. on 15.8.2019; solitary fire shot in the skull has been blamed as cause of death; upon petitioner’s disclosure, a .30 caliber pistol was recovered from the petitioner on 31.8.2019. The petitioner moved Court of Session Islamabad (West) for admission to bail on the basis of an affidavit purportedly sworn by the complainant wherein she exonerated him from the charge; it appears from the record that the complainant presented herself before Mr. Basit Aleem, learned Addl. Sessions Judge Islamabad (West) to affirm the contents of the affidavit; the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, and wisely so, viewed the move as the one calculated to subvert the prosecution evidence and declined the request. A learned Judge-in-Chamber upheld the dismissal. The issue came up before us on Criminal Petition No.622 of 2020 2 8.7.2020; surprised by a sudden somersault, that too, in a manner, too crude to be viewed as plausible, we sent for the Superintendent of Police; he is in attendance along with the Investigating Officer; the former states that the complainant after the incident had sought refuge in a public sanctuary (Dar-ul-Aman) whereafter she of own accord left for her village. We are at a loss to understand as to what weighed with the complainant to substitute “unknown dacoits” as the assassins of her sister through the affidavit dated 03.10.2019 while she had unambiguously blamed her former brother-in-law for the cold blooded incident through a written application moved just as close as on 15.8.2019. 2. Be that as it may and without prejudice to the petitioner’s right for a fair trial to be settled, on the strength of evidence alone with all statutory/procedural safeguards, we, in circumstances, consider it expedient to direct the Inspector General of Police Islamabad Capital Territory to ensure safe conduct throughout to Ms. Talal Sahr complainant so as to enable her to appear before the Court to adduce her evidence without let, hindrance or duress. It goes without saying that for effective and meaningful administration of criminal justice, witness protection is a sine qua non and as such a bounden responsibility is cast upon the State to be discharged through its functionaries to safeguard vulnerable witnesses in order to ensure that stream of justice runs pure and clean with scales strictly held in balance. Learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial with all convenient dispatch to preferably conclude it before the fall of October, 2020. Chief Commissioner Islamabad is directed to depute a diligent and capable Law Officer to prosecute the State case; he shall also consider the desirability of a trial in jail premises, if need be. Compliance reports regarding steps taken be submitted for our perusal in the chambers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon reconsideration, has opted to withdraw the petition; dismissed as withdrawn. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 10th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

1 ن�� � ِ�ا� )�ِ�� ر�اِ�ا ( د��:  � ،�� � � ب�  ب� � � ،ن� � �ود  �ا�� ىرا�� �٦٣٠/ ٢٠١٧  � ِ�ز)٣(١٨٥ل� �� ن��ِ �آ، ١٩٧٣� )� ف�ِ�آ �� ِ�ا�   ر�� �ر�٠٩۔٠٢۔٢٠١٧( � د� �� � )��( م�  ہ�و ى�وار   وا � رآ )� با�ن�(  ����: ،فر� � �ا� ب� � ِ�ا� �و   ب�ہ� � ��ر �� ِ�ا� �و � ،  �� ل�� :  ب� ب� ل� ��ا� �ڈ ،�ا � �ا ِ�ر��� : ٣٠��ا   ،٢٠١٧ � ٢٠١٧/ ٦٣٠ � ىرا�� �ا��  2 � � ،ن� � �ود:۔ ہﻣﺪﻘﻣ ہﺻﻼﺧ ﺮﺼﺘﺨﻣ:  ف� � � ل�� �� �� ��ا �ا�ا �ر� ىرا�� � ى�١٠٨٥   �ر�٢٥��  ٢٠١٥ ؁ �د ِ�ز ٣٣٨ ۔�ا/٥٠٦ تا��  ى�وار د�آ قد� �� ن��  ۔ �او� جرد ٢۔ � سا � ل� � جا�ا � � �٣  ر�� �� ِ�ا� � � � � �ا زا�  � ى�وار �د ِ�ز �ا�� ىرا�� �ا٥٦١ ۔ �ا � � � � �اد ىرا�� ��  ۔�� جر� � � � �او ٣۔  � � ل� �ا زا� � � سا٣ا�رد �ا �  � ِ� و�ور�ا justice) of peace)  ت�د ِ�ز  ٢٢ ۔ روا �ا٢٢ ۔ ب �� ىرا�� ��� �اد ض� روا � سا �   ن�� روا ں�ا� ں�� �د �آ قد� �� وا �ا �ا روا ا� �� � نا�� � سا� � � � � ل� �ا زا� �� �� �� �� ٣ � �� ما�ا � � �� ہر�� �ا�رد �  ا � � ز� ز� � �آ � ں�ود � � جار�ا � ��ں�ا� � نا�� � سا روا � سو    �ا � ۔ � � ن� � �� ن��(Ex-Officio Justice of Peace)سا �    �ا�رد� � ىر� �� � �� ہد�� � �ر� � �� � ١٧�د ٢٠١٦ ؁ نارود �ِ  � ىد �� � �� ہر�� ق� �ا�رد ِ�� ۃ� �� � ر� � � سا � � �و� �ا  نآ� ہو �ا ا� � �� �اد � سا � � ا� � � �و� �ا � � � � روا � �وز  �ا � � ك� � � ىرا�� ہو � � � �� � � سا � � روا � �وز � سا � � ہو ٢٠١٧/ ٦٣٠ � ىرا�� �ا��  3  �� � � ل� ح� سار وا � � �او ت�� �د روا ��/ � � �او ت��  ۔� ٤۔  ِ�ز �� � ٹر� � � ع�� سا ن�رد � �� � � �ذ �� �ا � � ں� �ر �� �ا ِ� ہر�� �� (Ex-Officio Justice of Peace)  �د ِ�ز تار�ا � ٢٢۔ �ار وا٢٢۔ ب �� ىرا�� ل� ن�رد � �� �� �� زو� ��ا �  �� �ر� � ىر� � � �� � �� ح� روا �� ۃ� ل� �� � �� � �و� �ا �� � ك� نآ� � ہر�� ��  �د �� � ت�� � �ا� � روا ىرا�� � ں� روا  ۔�د � ٥۔ �ا� � ى�وار ،� ى�وار ر�� �� ِ�ا� � ���  ٧١/ ٢٠٠٣  � �اد ۔ وا ��� � � ر� � � � سا ��ا � ٹر�� ر�� � �� � � زو� � تار�ار   نآ� � � � د� � �� �� � �د را� � � ا� ى�آ � � ِ�ز � � �د را�  ىد � �و� �ا ۃ� �� � ��ا روا � ر� ہ�� �ا� �ا � ا� ىد � ىر� ط� � � سا  �� �ا �� ں� روا � �� �� � � ف� � �و� �ا ۃ� روا ��ا ا� � �� �   �ا� ں� روا �� �� � ��� � � � ��� �� � � ہر�� � �د را� � � ��  �ا�� �� ہر�� � �ا تز�ا � ا� �ا� � �� � � ں�� � � ىد � جر� � �اد ۔ ٦۔  �� � ء�و ��د � � ��ا ِ� ر�ا � �ز� ےر� (Ex-Officio Justice of Peace)  �د � � �� � ا� � � � � ہ�� � تار�ا � �  ٢٢ ۔ �د روا �ا٢٢ ۔� � �� �ا�د � ں� � ب ۔  �د٢٢�ا ۔) فآ �تار�ا � �  ( ١۔ �� سا � �� � � ىر�� � � فآ � � �� �� �  ر�ا � ��  �د٥٤ � �ا �� ��  �د روا٥٥ � � جر�ا �ا � �ا �� �� �   ۔� ں� �� تار�ا ٢٠١٧/ ٦٣٠ � ىرا�� �ا��  4 ٢ ۔  �د � � � فآ �)١ ( � ، �� � � ىر�� � � ر� ِ�ز � ر�ا � ��   ز�� ر� � �� � س� � جر�ا �ا � � �� �� �� � � ہد� ر��   ٹر�ر� �� ہ�آ � ت�� � ىر�� � �ا �ا روا ے� م�ا � �� � � � سا �ا �ا � سا روا ےد ۔� ے� ر�� ہر�ود �  ٣ ۔  ر�� � ��ڈ ہو � � � ر�ا ر�ا � �� �ا � � فآ � � �� �� �  ے� �� دا�ا �ا � �ر � � � � �� :  ۔�ا � م� ىزا�ا �د �� � �� �ور � را� � سا ��� � � �  � � � � �� ل� � � � � � ا� ��  ل� � � � تد� ر�ا  ۔� � � � سا � ر� سا � سا � � �  ۔ب ۔� �ور � �� � � �ا � � ر� ص� روا� ب�� �� � م� ٤۔  ر�� � ��ڈ �� � �ر � � � �� �د )٣ ( �� �د دا�ا � �  ۔� � ر� � � � ف� � ز� �� � �ا � � � � ٥۔ � � � ز� ے� �و �� ��� � �� � �ا� نا � فآ �� �� �� �:  ۔�ا � � �� � � � �او �ر ر�ا � �� سا� ،ے� ىر� ��  ۔ب �ا �� ن�� � � � ے� �� � �و�د �� � ور � � �� �   �ا �� � � �� �� � سا � � روا � �� �ا� �� � ف������  � ر� سا � � �و�د �� روا � �� � �رد �� � ہد� ىر�  �� ہد� �� ح� سا روا � �� � ہ� �� � ر� �� ، � � �  � �و�د ���� �� � ر�  ۔� �� �� ہو � �� ، ٦۔  � فآ � ىزا�ا)�ا� ىزا�ا ( �� � م� �� � �� �ذ � � � � ىر� ت�ا� :  ۔�ا � ىرا�� ۔� �� � جار�ا �  ۔ب  ۔�� � � � �آ �� ے�ود � �آ �� �ا  ۔ج � ىر�ر � � �د م�ا� � �ا� و ر�ا � �� ،ىر� � � م� ��  �د٢٢ب ۔ )�ا� � � فآ � ( � ��� � �� � �ا� نا� �آ � � � �� � ے� �و � :  ۔�ا  � �� ل�� ع�ا � �� �� ع�و � �او � ر�ا � �� �� �ا  � �� �ا � ر� ىر� � �� �� دز� � م� � � �ا � � � �ور ى�� � � � ت� �ا روا � ے� ت� روا �� �د� ٹر  ۔� ےد � �ا جر�ا � �� ٢٠١٧/ ٦٣٠ � ىرا�� �ا��  5  ۔ب  � �ا)�ا ( ىزا�ا �د �� م� �� �� � � � م� ��و �� ،  ۔� �ور � � �� �ا� � سا � ر� � � �� � ۔  ۔� ےد دا�ا م� � �ا �� سا � �� ت� �ا ۔ �ا �� � رو� �� � م� � � � � ،� �� � �� � ن�   ۔ ےد � � ت� �� ،� ٧۔ ا � � � ��ر وا �او �ا ظ�ا � ت�د �� �ر�ن �� � م�ا � �  ��   ۔�ر � �ا ِ� � � �ز� � �� �او � � ں�(Ex-Officio Justice of Peace)  تار�ا � �� �ا� � � روا � � �� ��ا تار�ا ہر�� � �د � ��  ۔� � � � ر� � � سا� ا� �ا�� �او � � � �ا� �ر �� � ےد  �   � � � � �� ��� � ن�� ت� ٢٠١٦ � � ِ�ا� ٥٨١ 2016 PLD ( SC 581)  �� � �� ہ�� �� � �� و � �� � � سا ا� � ہ� �� �  و ہ� �ور زا � ور � � �ا ۔�ر � �ا ِ� �(Ex-Officio Justice of Peace)  �د ِ�ز تار�ا � ٢٢روا �ا ۔ ٢٢ � ہ� �� � � ىرا�� �� ب ۔  � � د� و دو� � نا � � ل�� �� � ںو� � ۔� � � � ٨۔  �� رود � ��ا � �� �� � ��اِ� فر� � دو� ��ا � � �  �ا� روا �� � ے�� �� � �� � تار�ا� �  � �� � � �و � ��  �ا ا� � �� � � ت�وا � � �� جرد ٹر�ر � �ا� ىزا�ا �د �� ك�   ں�� �ِ�ا� � � ر�ا �ار �آ ہ� ہو روا � �  �� دا� � دا�ا ع�ر � ��   � ا� � �� �  نا�وت� �� � �� �� �ا ِ� � سا روا �� د� � ��   �� �ا � � � ںور� � رو ا�� ر� � �� ر�ا � و � � �د م�ا � �ا� �ا � �ر ر�ا � ر� �د تار��� روا � � �  � ے�ز � تار�ا ��ا � ر�  �آ��ا روا � � تار�ا � ��ا ۔�  �  �  ن��  � � � نا � � �د ���  � �� � � سا ا� � ��ا � � �ا� � ر� � تار�ا ِ�� � �ر ف� �ا ٢٠١٧/ ٦٣٠ � ىرا�� �ا��  6  � � �� تار�ا � �ا� س� � �� ِ�ا� ف� � �� ىر� � ��� سا روا  �د ِ�ز � � �� � �� � �� � ن�� � � �٤٣٩ تار�ا � ىرا�� ��   �� ِ�ا� �� � � ء� � ہ�و سا ا� � � ب�را � � ��� � � ل�ا � �  ۔� � �� � � ��� ٩۔ �� �وا � � �ا ِ� ہ�ر وا � � � � (Ex-Officio Justice of Peace)  � ر� � تار�ا � �د � نا روا �� � و � � � � سار وا � � �� ��ا � � � ر��ا� � � ر�ا �ا� � � ر�ا � � � روا � � �د � �رد � �د م�ا �  تا  ت�او � ع� دو� � ر� �و� �ا� �� روا ىرا�� ا� � � � �� � �  ِ�ز � � سا روا �� � � ت�� ��� �ا ِ� �� (Justice of Peace)  ہ�اد �   � ر�ا� � روا � � تار�ا �ا � سا ا� �آ � � ر� ��� سا روا � � ل�ا   �ا� � � زو� � � � تار�ا روا �ا ِ� ��� � ر�اداد � زو� � � ن�� ��   � ��� �د را� � �� ِ�ا� � � � � د� � � تر� � � � سا � ظ� سا روا � ��� روا �� � � ��ا � � ن� � ف�ا م� � سا �� � � � � ہ�اِ آ � � ل� �ا � روا �� �ا � � ہ� �� � � ت�� � � � تار�ا �  � �� ى�ا�ا � ف�ا م� � � � �ِ � ت� � ں�ود ا� � � �� ِ� �ا (Justice of Peace) ��� � � � � �� ِ�ا� روا  � ار� � ��  ر� � �ا روا � �� �د � � �ا � � � ر� �ا�� � �� ا� ��اى � ےد  � �� � در روا خ� � ت� � ں�ود۔ ١٠  �ا ِ�(Justice of Peace) �   تار�ا ��ا دو� ہو � � �� ىد تا�   �ا�رد � ہر ر�ا � / �اد �ا�� ہد� ت�د �ز ٢٢ روا �ا ۔ ٢٢ ب ۔  �� ٢٠١٧/ ٦٣٠ � ىرا�� �ا��  7  �� ِ�ز روا � ِ�ز � � �ا� �� روا ىرا�� � ے� � � � زا � ىرا�� � �� ۔� �� � ل� � ت�� ىد �� د� � � �� � � �� �� �ا ، �� � �   ��� خر � ر� �� � ف�ا ں� روا � � � �� �� ىز� �� � ڑ� � � ناو�  ���روا ں� ں�ا� روا �� ��   � � �� � ا� � � �� ��و روا �و � � �ا � ِ�� �� �� ا� � � � � �ور � � � �� ادا راد� � � سا � ہ�  را� � � � ہ� �ا ا� � �  ف�ا) ٢٠،٠٠٠ ( ِ� ہو � � � �� � �� ��� �ور  �ا(Justice of Peace)  �� �� و�ور � �� روا � � ادا  �ا ِ�(Justice of Peace)  سا � � �اور� � �ا�رد  ۔ےد � �  ۔� �� روا �� � ھ� � �ا� � � � �آ م�اد٣٠��ا   ،٢٠١٧ء ؁ )� � ��ا ر�( �را �

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.630 of 2020 (Against the order dated 4.6.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Multan Bench Multan in Crl. Misc. No.1598- B/2020) Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad & others …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR with petitioners in person For the State: Mr. M. Sarwar Sidhu, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab with Taj Muhammad, SI. For the Complainant: Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC Date of hearing: 24.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Petitioners are blamed to have caused injuries, after forming an unlawful assembly, to the witnesses inside the safety of complainant’s home located within the remit of Police Station Miranpur District Vehari; they agitated a cross version that failed with the police. A learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mailsi primarily declined their request for bail in anticipation to their arrest on the ground that after the assault they repeated violence for which two different First Information Reports dated 05.02.2020 and 09.02.2020 were lodged during the period they were on ad interim bails; they did not display a better conduct in the High Court either; they were admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by a learned Judge-in-Chamber on 20.3.2020 on the condition of bonds, however, till the time of final hearing that took place as late as on 4.6.2020 they were found to have failed to file the bonds as directed by the Court. 2. Heard. Criminal Petition No.630 of 2020 2 3. It is a run of the mill criminal case wherein two sides confronted each other over an incident of eve-teasing; it graduated into a situation wherein both sides appeared to have sustained injuries and despite considerable lapse of time in the face of petitioners’ failure in their cross-version, they remained away from law by invoking a remedy which has judicially been devised to protect the innocent from the rigors of abuse of process of law initiated for purposes other than noble; the protection cannot be granted to stifle the investigative process and as such petitioners’ case does not fall in that category, particularly in view of their conduct before the Courts below, found by us as far from being enviable. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 24th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 632 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 24.05.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Crl.MBA No. 1148-P/2021) Abdul Majid Afridi … Petitioner VERSUS The State and Abdul Latif Afridi … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Sher Afzal Khan Marwat, ASC Mr. Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, AOR For the State: Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Addl. P.G Mr. Namir, I.O Date of Hearing: 08.11.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- The petitioner through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondent vide FIR No. 229/2021 dated 04.04.2021 U/s 302 / 324 / 148 / 149 / 109 / 427 / 353 / 34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 registered with Police Station Lahor, District Swabi by the Peshawar High Court vide order dated 24.05.2021 in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. As per allegations contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the said occurrence in which four persons lost their lives including one pregnant lady of advanced stage along with two other, who sustained injuries, was committed on the instigation/abetment of respondent. After the registration of the aforesaid crime report respondent filed a direct petition seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court which was confirmed vide order dated 24.05.2021, the said order is impugned before us. Hence the instant petition. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no denial to this fact that the Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 2 respondent and the complainant party were inimical towards each other with previous enmity of murders. Contends that the main assailants in the aforesaid crime report are closely related to the respondent, hence, there is very strong reason to believe that the instant occurrence has taken place at the behest of the respondent. Contends that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy in the ‘hujra’ of the respondent, which was subsequently materialized resulting into death of four persons including one woman, who was six months pregnant. Contends that one of the deceased was District & Sessions Judge; otherwise it has taken place in a populated area, therefore, it stirred the public peace and security due to its gravity, hence, the relief extended by the High Court is uncalled for. Contends that the respondent had directly filed petition before the High Court to get the relief of pre-arrest bail, which is against normal practice and even during the pendency of the petition, the respondent was burdened with an amount of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited to a charitable foundation on the basis of a mis-statement, therefore, this aspect in “isolation” is sufficient to accede to the prayer of the petitioner before this Court. Contends that the respondent remained the President of the Bar and due to office he enjoyed, extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail was extended to him. Lastly it is argued that in all eventualities, it is a fit case for interference by this Court in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer has defended the impugned order by contending that there is nothing on record, which could suggest that the respondent has misused the concession of bail in any manner, therefore, in absence of any material, which is essential for cancellation of bail, the impugned order may be upheld. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. Prior to touching upon the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to discuss the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had filed a direct petition seeking pre-arrest bail before the High Court without exhausting the remedy of approaching the Court of first instance. Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 3 There is no denial to this fact that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court is concurrent in nature. The learned High Court while adjudicating the matter has given cogent reasons especially when it is admitted that one of the deceased was himself a District & Sessions Judge, therefore, any order if would have been passed either way that would have been considered prejudicial because of the reason that the deceased was member of the district judiciary. Even otherwise, the respondent has not availed one remedy, which was available to him while agitating his grievance before the High Court, therefore, he lost one opportunity causing no prejudice to complainant party. 6. On merits, we deem it of prime consideration to evaluate the material available on the record to connect the respondent with the accusation as alleged against him. We have perused the crime report with naked eye and found that the complainant while lodging crime report has not mentioned specific date, time and place where the conspiracy was hatched. Even name and number of witnesses to that extent is not incorporated while lodging the FIR. During the course of arguments, it was informed that one of the assailants, who was taken into custody, made a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In his statement, he has admitted the instant occurrence and has pointed out towards the respondent being head of the family to instigate the others to commit the aforesaid occurrence. Perusal of the statement clearly reflects that an incident had taken place way back in the month of April, 2020 when ‘jirga’ was convened between the families to settle down the blood feud between the parties, however, it ended in exchange of hot words where the respondent had extended threats of dire consequences to one of the deceased Aftab Afridi. The confessional statement is reproduced for its perusal:- Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 4 7. The statement of one accused in “isolation” does not advance the prosecution case except at the most it is a statement of a co-accused. We have noticed that there is nothing on the record where the prosecution has advanced its case qua conspiracy in any manner except the bald allegation which is incorporated in the FIR without citing any witness of the said aspect of the case. The statement of one of the assailants recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in all fairness is a statement of co-accused, hence, no deviation can be made against the established principle of law that statement of one accused cannot be used against the other in absence of any attending material produced by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on Nouman Khan Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 666) & Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 738). Perusal of Section 107 PPC reveals that three ingredients are essential to dub any person as conspirator i.e. (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with co-accused, and (iii) intentional aid qua the act or omission for the purpose of completion of said abetment. All these three ingredients of Section 107 PPC are prima facie missing from the record. We do not want to give any finding in this regard because it can prejudice the case of either of the party. It is now established without any hesitation that considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on different footings. Generally speaking, the Courts are reluctant to interfere in the order of grant of bail and even in cases where it is apparently found that the bail granting order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the Courts restrain to interfere in such matters if it is found that there was nothing to show that the accused has misused the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on Shahid Arshad Vs. Muhammad Naqi Butt (1976 SCMR 360). In a recent judgment reported as Samiullah Vs. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), which was further followed in Criminal Petition Nos. 1459/2020, 1523/2020, 970 to 976/2021 & Criminal Petition No. 1145-L of 2020, this Court has held that for the purpose of cancellation of bail, following considerations are to be satisfied:- “i) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. ii) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner. Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 5 iii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses. iv) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court. v) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation. vi) That accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence. vii) That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt of the accused.” 9. When we confronted learned counsel for the petitioner with the above-said guidelines, he could not point out on record as to whether the respondent has violated any of the afore-referred conditions, which could become basis for cancellation of bail granted to him. The accumulative effect of the reasons given above is that the order impugned before us is in accordance with law and learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to justify that the High Court has erred in deciding the matter, which by any stretch of imagination could be termed as perverse, arbitrary and fanciful. During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the family of the deceased Judge Aftab Afridi is being threatened through social media for dire consequences and in this regard three complaints have been lodged with Federal Investigating Agency. In this view of the matter, the CCPO Peshawar is directed to provide adequate security to the legal heirs of the deceased Judge. The concerned Director FIA is also directed to inquire into the contents of the complaints and if found actionable proceed strictly in accordance with law. 10. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 8th of November, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB Criminal Petition No.634 of 2015 (On appeal from the judgment dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Crl.A.NO.8/15)) Soba Khan …Petitioner Versus The State and another ..Respondents For the petitioner: Sardar Khurram Latif Khosa, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Mr. Asjad Javed Goral, APG, Pb. Complainant: N.R. Date of hearing: 4.3.2016 JUDGEMNT Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— CMA NO.952/15 for condonation of delay is allowed. Crl.P.634/15: The petitioner, Soba Khan, s/o Khan Muhammad has sought leave to appeal against the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 8.7.2015 whereby, during pendency of his appeal against conviction and life imprisonment awarded to him by the Trial Court, his petition for grant of bail by suspending his sentence till disposal of the appeal was dismissed. We have heard Sardar Khurram Latif Khosa, learned ASC for the petitioner, Mr. Asjad Javed Goral, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab while the complainant has left the country and was not represented. Crl.P.634/15 2 2. The petitioner along with five co-accused were charged for effectively firing at the deceased namely Ghulam Mustafa, uncle of the complainant, namely, Allah Yar and causing his death while other two co-accused namely, Amir Bakhsh and Yar Muhammad were charged for conspiracy/abetment for the crime. Allegedly the occurrence took place at 5:30 pm while the report of the crime was lodged at the spot with S.I. Farid Bakhsh at 7:30 pm, on 11.04.2012, the day on which the tragedy took place. 3. Learned ASC for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order/judgment of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court has altogether thwarted the way of grant of bail in post conviction case, which is not in consonance with the provisions of S.426 Cr.P.C. empowering the Appellate Court to grant bail to the convict by suspending his sentence and that, the mere view of the learned Judge that the points raised before him relate to deeper appreciation of evidence was based on misconception. No innocent person shall be left to rot in Jail if his case is fit for grant of bail, by way of suspension of his sentence because if in the long run he is acquitted like his co-accused then, he cannot be compensated for the long incarceration in Jail. 4. Learned State Counsel for the Government of Punjab defended the impugned order/judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the same grounds, given therein. 5. In the instant case, six accused in all were charged and it is alleged that all of them encircled the deceased and fired at him after one another with quick succession, hitting him on different parts of his body. Crl.P.634/15 3 6. Learned ASC for the petitioner invited our attention to the postmortem report and the pictorial, annexed therewith, which contradict the ocular account, because the petitioner and the absconding co-accused have been attributed inflicting injuries on left neck of the deceased and the other acquitted accused has been attributed firing at the deceased which hit him on the back of his neck. The autopsy report and the pictorial, both undeniably reveal that the deceased has sustained only one firearm entry wound on the left side of neck while there are two exit wounds, one on the right side of the neck and the other on the lateral top of right shoulder, above the armpit. 7. It was stated at the bar that the majority of the accused, charged in the FIR were declared innocent in two consecutive investigations, conducted by the police; the one initially carried out by the first investigating officer and the second one on the application of the complainant, thus they were not recommended for trial and were placed in column No.II of the “Chalan” however, on a private complaint, lodged by the complainant with inordinate delay, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of it, after getting report from the Magistrate, who held inquiry into the matter and summoned all the accused, charged in the FIR to face the trial. 8. True that the principle of law is well settled that police opinion, even conclusive in nature, is not binding on the Court and it may disagree with the same but for the cogent reasons to be recorded. However, as it appears from the record, the learned Trial Judge has omitted to record such reasons. Crl.P.634/15 4 9. The next crucial point in the matter is that, according to the allegations contained in the FIR and the complaint lodged with considerable delay, the crime was committed by all members of the unlawful assembly and each one of them participated in the crime, playing effective and active role of causing injuries to the deceased and evidence recorded at the trial is also the same so much so that one of the acquitted co-accused who has been attributed similar fatal injury like the petitioner, has been acquitted. Such a decision was taken by the Trial Court despite applicability of the provision of S.149 PPC attracting vicarious liability to each member of the unlawful assembly committing cognizable offence in prosecution of common object of that assembly. This provision further states that even a member of such assembly having simple knowledge that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, shall be deemed to be guilty for that offence. This criminal liability is judicially phrased as, “A vicarious liability”. 10. It is indeed disturbing feature that similarly charged accused have been acquitted on the same set of evidence but the petitioner was convicted alone because the injury on the neck was found to be one of the fatal injuries in the autopsy report by the Medico-legal officer, ignoring the fact that for this solitary entry wound three persons have been charged including the petitioner. Whether it happened in the present case or not, but the probability is definitely there in view of the consistent opinion of the Jurists on Medicolegal science/jurisprudence that a single bullet after entering the deceased’s body either due to its spin, speed or hitting the hard part of the body like bone, fragmented and splintered pieces of bullet caused multiple exit wounds. Crl.P.634/15 5 11. For grant of bail at post conviction stage, the Legislature has enacted the provision of S.426 Cr.P.C. which consists of main three sub-sections, three clauses and a proviso as well. These are of significance and are reproduced below:- 426. Suspension of sentence pending appeals. Releas on bail.-- (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of any appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (2B) Where High Court is satisfied that a convicted person has been granted special leave to appeal to the the Supreme Court against any sentence which it has imposed or maintained, it may if it so thinks fit order that pending the appeal the sentence or order appealed against be suspended, and also, if the said person is in confinement, that he be released on bail. (3) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment, or transportation, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced.” 12. Like the provisions of S.497 and 498 Cr.P.C. the guiding principle and criteria including limitations on the powers of the Court not to grant bail in offences punishable with death, or imprisonment for life or for ten years falling within the prohibitory limb of S.497 Cr.P.C. has been omitted from the provision of S.426 Sub-S.(1) Cr.P.C. Crl.P.634/15 6 13. Considering from a legal angle, the omission of these prohibitions, limitations and guidelines is meaningful because the Legislature did not deem it appropriate to borrow the guidelines/criteria, provided for grant of bail in the provision of S.497 Cr.P.C. however, the principle of law has been since long developed by the superior courts that the powers of the Appeal Court in granting bail at post conviction stage, shall be guided by the criteria/principle provided in S.497 Cr.P.C. while in some cases it has been further provided that the Court of appeal or a High Court shall not conclusively decide the guilt or innocence of the accused, entering upon the re- appraisal of evidence during pendency of appeal against the conviction and sentence, subject of course that the matter relates to liberty of a person therefore, it shall not be decided in vacuum and tentative assessment of the evidence has to be made. Similarly, a sick or an infirm person, whose treatment in prison cannot be managed properly, has been released on bail. Also woman, having a suckling baby has been granted bail even in life imprisonment cases by suspending her sentence. 14. In view of above guidelines by the superior courts now the provision of S.426 Cr.P.C is considered to be pari-meteria with S.497 Cr.P.C. The contention that after conviction the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused disappears, will have little bearing on the mind of the Appeal Court because appeal is always construed to be continuation of the same proceedings and fair balance is to be struck between the two extreme views so that justice is done in all circumstances and technicalities of procedural law, shall in no manner thwart the same because if in the end of the day after spending years in the prison, the convict is acquitted, there is no reparatory Crl.P.634/15 7 arrangement so far provided in any law including the Criminal Procedure Code, to compensate him for incarceration in prison for years. While to the contrary sub.S.(3) of S.426 Cr.P.C. provides that while computing the sentence of the convict, the period during which his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail, shall be excluded from the total period of sentence he has to undergo. Thus, the State or the complainant is compensated in that manner but for the convict no such relief is provided in law. 15. In view of the above legal position, emanating from the construction of the provision of S.426 Cr.P.C. the Court of Appeal, more particularly the High Court, shall take extraordinary caution and care not to leave the convict to rot in Jail by undergoing any sentence including the life imprisonment and in appropriate cases through tentative assessment of the evidence on record if the case of any convicted person is found fit for grant of bail then, denial of the same would amount to patent injustice. 16. What is the tentative assessment of evidence/materials and how it differs from deeper appreciation of evidence, has been appropriately distinguished from one another in the case of Khalid Javed Gillan v. State (PLD 1978 SC 256), however, if on reconsideration of the evidence the Court of Appeal is of the view that the conviction and sentence is not liable to be maintained then, slightly touching the merits of the case without recording conclusive findings therein, would be a permissible course in the interest of justice because such assessment of evidence would not be binding on the court of appeal, or to say the High Court, while hearing the appeal. It is for this reason that the Legislature has enacted sub-S.(3) of S.426 Cr.P.C. envisaging how to the court of appeal to deal with in future Crl.P.634/15 8 course when the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is maintained. Almost similar principle is laid down by the superior courts while interpreting the provision of S.497 Cr.P.C. and it has been held in numerous reported judgments that the provision of S.426 Cr.P.C. is at par and parallel to the provision of S.497 Cr.P.C. where such assessment is not prohibited by the words and phrases used therein then, why extra limitations and prohibitions shall be read into S.426 Cr.P.C. The principle that the court of appeal or the High Court while considering the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the convict shall take extra care, is not a rule of law but a rule of caution. Keeping in view the above legal position squarely spelt out after placing construction on the provision of S.426 Cr.P.C there appears no much difference between the two provisions of law regulating the grant of bail at pre and post conviction stages. 17. It is by now well settled principle of law relating to re- appraisal of evidence that once co-accused, similarly charged and attributed same and similar role in a particular crime, is acquitted on the basis of same set of evidence where the witnesses have maintained no regard for truth while deposing on oath to tell the truth and nothing else then, ordinarily they shall not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless their testimony/evidence is strongly corroborated by independent cogent and convincing evidence. 18. Keeping in view the above principle of law, tentatively it appears to us that the evidence furnished by the prosecution in this case appears to be indivisible and in absence of additional corroboration of the nature stated above, whether conviction and sentence of the petitioner can be maintained on the same evidence, on the basis of which the co-accused have been acquitted with the same Crl.P.634/15 9 and similar role, thus, this fact has entitled the petitioner to the concession of bail. 18. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. The appellant is granted bail by suspending his sentence of life imprisonment in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar (Judicial), of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. Judge Judge Judge B-V Islamabad, the 4th March, 2016 Nisar /- Approved For Reporting

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.640 of 2020 (Against order dated 5.6.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. Misc. (BA) No.1446-P/2020) Kamran .…Petitioner(s) Versus Kamran Malik and another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hussain Ali, ASC For the State: Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC with Siraj, I.O. Date of hearing: 30.07.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Waseem Aslam, Waqas Aslam and Siddique Aslam, real brothers inter se, were shot dead at 8:30 p.m. on 14.1.2020 within the precincts of Police Station Bhana-Marri Peshawar; Kamran Malik, complainant survived the assault unscathed. Muhammad Ishaq, co-accused, is assigned fatal shots in the deadly assault while the petitioner, no other than his son, is blamed to have exhorted him to take on the deceased. A previous brawl is cited as motive for the crime. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Awful magnitude of violence and resultant loss of life notwithstanding, nonetheless, the petitioner though statedly present with other family members outside his home where the deceased had gone to lodge complaint for the previous incident, is not attributed any harm to them, as on prosecution’s own showing, he allegedly instigated his father, otherwise authoritatively placed on the parental rung. Question as to whether, instead of taking deadly initiative himself, he preferred to persuade his father for the misadventure, a role, contrary to the traditions, brings the accusation within the ambit of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and thus, would be best settled after Criminal Petition No.640 of 2020 2 recording of evidence, therefore, he cannot be kept behind the bars merely as a measure of punishment. Investigation being complete, petitioner’s continuous detention is not likely to serve any useful purpose, beneficial to the prosecution. Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge. These are the reasons of our short order of even date, reproduced below: “For reasons to follow, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge.” Judge Judge Islamabad, the 30th July, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.654 of 2020 (Against the order dated 1.6.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in C.M. No.137/2020 in Crl. Misc. No.689-B/2020) Saeed Zaman .…Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Riffat Saghiry Kureshy, ASC For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti Addl. Attorney General along with Qaiser Masood, Ad. Dir. (L) Fazal Mabood, I.O. Mr. Qaisar Imam Ch. AD (L) Date of hearing: 07.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Saeed Zaman, petitioner, is amongst the array of accused, allegedly involved in a massive financial scam wherein, after his arrest, he attempted for bail; in the wake of dismissal of his motion in the Court of Session, he moved the Islamabad High Court for bail vide Crl. Misc. No.682-B of 2019, however, it was dismissed withdrawn on 12.11.2019. Undeterred by his previous failure, the petitioner once again moved the High Court through Crl. Misc. No. 689-B of 2020 when a learned Judge-in-Chamber vide order dated 20.5.2020, earlier dismissal notwithstanding, granted him bail, however, with a formidable rider in terms of a direction to deposit Rs.5.16 million, the amount allegedly siphoned off by him, with the Court, besides furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety. As the petitioner failed to arrange the amount, he moved the Court through C.M. No.137/2020 seeking exemption from the cash deposit, a request declined vide impugned order dated 01.06.2020. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the learned Judge-in-Chamber felt persuaded to release the petitioner on bail, imposition of a condition, compliance whereof is beyond his financial capacity, would tantamount to withhold the benefit of relief, otherwise held as extendable. It is next argued that the impugned condition being alien to law merits interference by this Court. The learned Law Officer has contested the plea. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Law on the grant or refusal of bail in criminal cases is by now clearly contoured and well settled, the regime is an interlocutory arrangement to ensure physical presence of an accused so as to confront the indictment pending conclusion of the trial, either under judicial custody or with a surety to produce him before the Court as and when required. In the non-bailable category of offences, grant of bail in crimes punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years, presumably with charges on the lower side of gravity scale, the release of accused, after conclusion of investigation is a rule, however, even in appropriate cases, the Court may still validly decline the concession. In offences punishable with death or for imprisonment for 10 years or above, the accused cannot be released on bail unless he succeeds in making out a case calling for further probe. In the event of his release on bail, the Court may require an accused to execute a bond either personally or through sureties amount whereof “shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive.” The bond by the accused or the sureties, as the case may be, has to be executed to ensure compliance, contemplated by section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (‘the Code’), reproduced below for ready reference: “Bond of accused and sureties.-(1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police-officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. (2) If the case so require, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge.” The survey of above provisions clearly demonstrates that in case the Court consider it expedient to release an accused on bail pending conclusion of 3 his trial, it can certainly require him to execute a bond either personally or through sureties, setting conscionable amounts therein, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case with a view to ensure future attendance and may proceed to forfeit such bond in the event of default/non-compliance as contemplated by section 514 of the Code. The Code does not envisage cash deposit except for an undertaking for good behavior within the framework of section 513 thereof. The above interlocutory arrangement cannot be equated with the final adjudication of a criminal case, to be essentially settled on the strength of evidence with all procedural safeguards to conveniently enable the accused to vindicate his position without any embarrassment and during pendency of the process, he can secure interim freedom only if a case for his release is made out and in such eventuality, he cannot be additionally coerced to surrender or deposit amounts, forfeiture or settlement whereof is consequent upon final adjudication, that too, subject to the law. The statutory arrangements detailed above are founded on the paramount principle of equality before law as well as equal protection thereof; protection and equality that are not shadowed by the divergent financial capacities of different accused, otherwise found entitled to freedom, interim or ultimate, without strings. 5. For the above reasons, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to uphold the imposition of the impugned condition. Consequently, petition is converted into appeal and allowed, as a result whereof, order dated 20.05.2020 by the Islamabad High Court is set aside. Petitioner’s plea for bail shall be deemed as pending before the High Court for decision afresh in accordance with law on the available grounds. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 7th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 656-L OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21377-B/2021) Shahid Abbas … Petitioner VERSUS The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Hamayun Rashid Ch, ASC a/w petitioner For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. Mr. Ejaz Ahmed, SI Date of Hearing: 12.10.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 33 dated 11.01.2021 under Sections 452/337-A(ii)/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/448/511/148/149 PPC at Police Station Bhawana, District Chiniot in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with firearms and ‘sotas’ trespassed into the house of the complainant while causing injuries to him. Petitioner’s pre-arrest bail was declined by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.03.2021 and it also met the same fate before the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 28.04.2021. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts Criminal Petition No. 656-L/2021 2 and circumstances due to connivance of the complainant with local police. Further contends that the FIR of the alleged occurrence was registered after a delay of 23 days, which shows deliberation and consultation on the part of the complainant. Lastly contends that the medico legal report was obtained prior to the occurrence, which speaks volume on the conduct of the complainant. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the crime report with a specific allegation of causing ‘sota’ blow on the left side of head of the complainant, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record. There is no denial to the fact that the FIR of the occurrence was got recorded after an inordinate delay of about 23 days for which no plausible explanation has been given. It was the stance of the complainant that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.12.2020 at about 9/10 PM in night but surprisingly, the medico legal report had been obtained prior to the occurrence and the same shows that the injured was examined at 2.10 PM on 19.12.2020 i.e. about 7/8 hours prior to the occurrence. As per the contents of the crime report, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he firstly caught hold of the complainant and thereafter, he gave a ‘sota’ blow on the left side of his head. However, we have found that the injured was examined by a medical board and so far as the injury on his head is concerned, the report shows that the possibility of fabrication cannot be ruled out. It is an admitted position that civil litigation is pending between the parties. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to his guilt. Criminal Petition No. 656-L/2021 3 6. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide this Court’s order dated 23.07.2021. JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 12th of October, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.658 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 16.04.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr.M. BA No.815- P/2020) Tahir Zeb etc. …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahazad, ASC (State counsel KP) along with Anwar Khan, SI/I.O. For the Complainant: Mr. Abdul Ahad Khan, ASC Date of hearing: 25.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition to the extent of Tahir Zaib, petitioner, to his extent, it stands dismissed. 2. It is alleged that on the fateful day i.e. 21.12.2019 at about 15:30 p.m, the petitioner joined his brother to run over Liaqat Khan deceased over a dispute regarding the sale of the same vehicle; Tahir Zaib was on the wheel while Shair Zaib petitioner accompanied him on the next seat. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. It appears that a situation cropped up all of a sudden resulting into injuries to the deceased; petitioner’s culpability for being in the community of intention on account of his presence on the next seat is an issue that in the facts and circumstances of the case can be best settled after recording of evidence. An unconventional mode adopted by the co-accused to take the life of the deceased and suddenness of the incident squarely bring petitioner’s case within the remit of further probe; to his extent criminal petition No.658 of 2020 is converted into appeal and allowed; he shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of 2 Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 25th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Ghulam Raza/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petitions No.67-P & 68-P of 2014 (Against the judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Sawat in Criminal Appeal No.29-A of 2012). Saleem Zada and others (in Cr.P. No.67-P/2014) Muhammad Zada (in Cr.P. No.68-P/2014) …Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State etc. (in Cr.P. No.67-P/2014) Sher Zamin etc. (in Cr.P. No.68-P/2014) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) (in both cases) : Mr. Sahibzada Asadullah, ASC For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Zia Ur Rehman Khan, ASC (in both cases) Date of Hearing : 10.06.2019 JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Saleem Zada, Khawat Shah and Swat Shah, petitioners in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.67-P/2014 alongside Sher Zamin, respondent in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.68-P/2014 were tried for committing qatl-e-amd of Pir Zada as well as, attempt on Bahri Zaman alias Bahrey, PW; they were returned a guilty verdict by the trial Court vide judgment dated 7.2.2012. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court acquitted Sher Zamin from the charge, however, maintained convictions and sentences consequent thereupon of the remainder vide impugned judgment dated 29.5.2014; this brings the complainant and the convicts before us; both issues with a common thread are being decided through this single judgment. 2. In the backdrop of previous enmity, on eventful day i.e. 26.11.2010 at 4.30 p.m., the petitioners and the respondent intercepted Pir Zada deceased and Bahri Zaman, PW while on board Criminal Petition Nos.67 & 68-L of 2014 2 a public vehicle; forcibly de-boarded, they were dealt with hatchet blows as well as fire shots, in consequence whereof, Pir Zada succumbed to the injuries at the crime scene while the complainant with multiple injuries survived the assault. Incident was reported at the hospital and a formal case was registered 6.30 p.m. at Police Station Gagra, situated, 9/10 kilometers from the venue. The accused claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution produced Bahri Zaman, PW-1 alongside Taj Habib Gul, PW-2 to bring home the charge; the latter is driver of the vehicle. Fate of the prosecution case is primarily hinged upon the statement of Bahri Zaman, PW-1. Taj Habib Gul, PW-2, driver of the vehicle though confirmed the episode, however, had not identified the assailants so as to establish their culpability. Investigative conclusions and medical evidence are in line with the statement of Bahri Zaman, PW-1; durations given in the crime report as well as by the doctor coincide with the time of occurrence; the case was registered with a remarkable promptitude; previous bad blood has not seriously been contested; it is on the basis of these pieces of evidence that the accused have been found guilty of the crime. We have gone through the statement of Bahri Zaman, the sole eye witness and found him most confidence inspiring; he alone can sustain the charge; being injured, his presence cannot be doubted. Driver of the vehicle, though reticent in his deposition, nonetheless, has unambiguously confirmed circumstances whereunder the occurrence took place. Cross examination on both the witnesses remained inconsequential and as such convictions and sentences consequent thereupon do not call for interference. Acquittal of Sher Zamin, respondent, seemingly out of abundant caution, particularly having regard to his mute presence does not offend any principle of law; there do not exist extra ordinary grounds to recall freedom. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal refused. JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 10th of June, 2019 Ghulam Raza/* JUDGE Criminal Petition Nos.67 & 68-L of 2014 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.682 OF 2020 (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 08.06.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 22166-B/2020) Abbas Raza … Petitioner Versus The State through P.G. Punjab and others … Respondents For the Petitioner : Rana Muhammad Akram, ASC For Respondent : Mirza Muhammad Usman, Deputy Prosecutor General and Khizar Hayat SI, police station Ghulam Muhamma Abad, Faisalabad Date of Hearing : 15.09.2020 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI:- Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calling in question the order of Single Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 08.06.2020 declining post arrest bail to the petitioner with prayer to grant the same in the interest of safe administration of justice. 2. The petitioner was involved in case bearing FIR No.214/2020 dated 02.02.2020 registered with police station Ghulam Criminal Petition No. 682 of 2020. -: 2 :- Muhammad Abad, District Faisalabad, offence under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997. As per allegation contained in the crime report it is alleged that the petitioner was selling narcotics while sitting in the “Baithak” adjacent to his house. He was taken into custody. During his personal search a polythene shopper was found containing opium weighing 1300 grams held in his right hand at the time of raid. The raiding party also took into possession one electric weighing machine and sale proceeds amounting to Rs.2129290/-. The detail of the denomination is mentioned in the crime report. Vide order dated 27.07.2020, this Court issued notice to the State. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution story narrated in the crime report is frivolous, concocted and it do not inspire confidence from its bare reading. Contends that the allegation that 1300 grams opium was recovered do not commensurate with the recovery of the sale proceeds of the contraband which is much higher and as such its create suspicion qua the genuineness of the prosecution’s version in the crime report. Learned counsel further brought in the notice of this Court that the mother of the petitioner had sold her house just prior to the registration of this case against the consideration of Rs.2450000/- and the amount mentioned in the crime report is sale consideration of the said house which was taken into possession by the investigating officer without any legal justification. Contends that the amount mentioned in the crime report is the same amount which was recovered by the police while misusing its authority which is against the spirit of safe administration of justice. Criminal Petition No. 682 of 2020. -: 3 :- 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer frankly conceded that the recovery of contraband do not commensurate with the sale proceeds levelled in the crime report, however, he stated that as the recovery of 1300 grams of opium is alleged which do fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. hence, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Bare perusal of the crime report clearly reflects that the instant occurrence has taken place in the odd hours of night at 12.50 a.m. on 02.02.2020 while the matter was registered against the petitioner on the same day at 1.05 a.m. In the month of February, when the weather is cold, selling of narcotics while sitting in the “Baithak” seems to be something astonishing, when there is remote possibility of attracting any customer at that odd time. Otherwise when it is the allegation that the petitioner is selling narcotics substance “opium” a contraband the use of which makes the consumer affected through central nervous system pouring negative impact in the body while making him dull, depressed, of impaired reflexes, lacking sharpness turning into a sluggish entity. All these aspects when evaluated conjointly, it lends support to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua prosecution story being result of fabrication. The liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The denial of the same should be such which can establish the guilt of the accused without second though. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and the quantity of recovered contraband and seeking guidance from the case titled “SAEED AHMED versus STATE through P.G. Punjab and Criminal Petition No. 682 of 2020. -: 4 :- another” (PLJ 2018 SC 812), we are persuaded to grant leave to appeal in the instant petition while converting it into appeal and the same is allowed. As a consequent, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. Judge Judge Islamabad, 15.09.2020 Approved for reporting. “Athar”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 (Against the judgment dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2009) Niaz Ahmed …Petitioner versus Hasrat Mahmood, etc. …Respondents For the petitioner: Sh. Ahsan-un-Din, ASC For respondents No. 1-3: Mr. Tanvir Iqbal, ASC Date of hearing: 04.11.2015 ORDER Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through the relevant record of the case appended with this petition. 2. As regards the merits of the case we have noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and according to the FIR as well as the private complaint initially only a suspicion had been expressed by the petitioner against respondents No. 1 to 3 vis-à-vis their involvement in the murder in issue. During the trial the proseuction had based its case against respondents No. 1 to 3 only on circumstantial evidence in the shape of the last-seen evidence, motive and an extra-judicial confession. All the said three pieces of evidence had threadbarely been discussed by the trial court as well as the High Court and Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 2 both the courts below had concurred in their conclusion that the proseuction had remained unable to prove its case against respondents No. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt and resultantly the trial court had acquitted the said respondents and the High Court had upheld such acquittal. Upon our own independent evaluation of the said pieces of evidence we have not been able to take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by the courts below. 3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had initially lodged an FIR in respect of the incident in question and subsequently, having remained dissatisfied with the investigation of the case by the local police, he had instituted a private complaint regarding the selfsame incident containing identical allegations as leveled in the FIR and, thus, by virtue of the law declared by this Court in many cases the trial court ought to have conducted the trial in the complaint case first and it ought not to have consolidated the complaint case and the Challan case for a joint and simultaneous trial. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Nur Elahi v. The State, etc. (PLD 1966 SC 708), Mst. Rasool Bibi v. The State and another (2000 SCMR 641), Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid and 5 others (1981 SCMR 361) and Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others (PLD 1984 SC 95). We have attended to the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the precedent cases referred to by him in support of such contention. The law is settled by now that if different versions of the same incident are advanced by the rival parties through cross- cases and such different versions contain different sets of accused persons then trial of such cross-cases is to be held simultaneously and side by side and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Muhammad Sadiq v. The State and another (PLD 1971 SC 713), Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and Nine others (PLJ 1981 SC 895), Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali, etc. (1987 PSC 646) and Mst. Rasool Bibi v. The State and another (2000 SCMR 641). The law is Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 3 equally settled on the point that where the same party lodging the FIR also institutes a private complaint containing the same allegations against the same set of accused persons then the trial court is to hold a trial in the complainant case first and in the meanwhile the Challan case is to be kept dormant awaiting the fate of the trial in the complaint case and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Nur Elahi v. The State, etc. (PLD 1966 SC 708), Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 SC 53), Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid and 5 others (1981 SCMR 361), Mumtaz and others v. Mansoor Ahmed and another (NLR 1984 Cr.L.J. 300 (SC)), Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali and others (PLD 1986 SC 737) and Aziz-ur-Rehman v. The State (PLD 1987 Lahore 245). In the case in hand the trial court had ordered a consolidated trial of the Challan case and the complainant case which apparently was not the recommended course to be adopted. Be that as it may the fact remains that the provisions of section 537, Cr.P.C. provide that no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is to be reversed or altered in appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the mode of trial unless such error, omission or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. An explanation attached with section 537, Cr.P.C. clarifies that in determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceedings in the Code of Criminal Procedure has occasioned a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether an objection in that regard could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. In the present case we have pertinently noticed that after a consolidated trial having been ordered by the trial court the petitioner had never raised any objection throughout the trial against the mode of trial adopted. Apart from that the learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to convince us that the mode of trial adopted by the trial court had caused any failure of justice because whatever be the mode of trial adopted by the trial court the evidence available with the proseuction was not likely to improve. We have already noticed above that the evidence available with the proseuction was not worthy of implicit reliance Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 4 and, thus, the courts below have been found by us to be quite justified in concluding that the proseuction had failed to prove its case against respondents No. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances no occasion has been found by us for interference in the matter by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad 04.11.2015 Approved for reporting. Arif

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.687 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 20.05.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench in Crl. Misc. BA No.205-B/2020) Muhammad Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus Iqbal Khan & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Salah-ud-Din Malik, ASC/AOR For the State: Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC with Ghousullah, SI/I.O. P.S. Pezu Lakki Marwat. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai, ASC with respondent No.1 in person. Mr. Mahmood Ahmed Sheikh, AOR Date of hearing: 08.02.2021. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Impugned herein is order dated 20.05.2020 by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Peshawar High Court at Bannu Bench, admitting Iqbal Khan respondent, accused in a case of homicide, to post arrest bail; according to the prosecution, he, on the fateful day, alongwith his brother Ayub Khan, armed with Kalashnikovs, fatally targeted Fazal Rehman, deceased, in the backdrop of an ongoing blood feud; witnesses survived the assault unscathed. Autopsy confirmed solitary fire shot in the left eye with corresponding exit. During spot inspection, the Investigating Officer secured 30 casings of Kalashnikov. The accused avoided arrest, however, the respondent was arrest after almost four years of the incident, co-accused still away from the law. The High Court, ignoring respondent’s absconsion, granted him bail on the ground that given the joint role it was far from being clear as to whose shot hit the deceased. A position defended by the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Totality of circumstances does not admit space, that too, within the restricted scope of tentative assessment to hypothetically absolve the Criminal Petition No.687 of 2020 2 respondent from the indivisibility of his role of being in the community of intention with the allegation of active participation in the crime. Though the absconsion by itself is not proof of guilt nor insurmountably stands in impediment to release of an offender if otherwise a case for grant of bail is made out, nonetheless, it is a circumstance which cannot be invariably ignored without having regard to peculiarity of circumstances in each case as there are situations that possibly entail consequences. In the present case, both the respondents opted to avoid the law; one of them is yet not arrested, thus, in the absence of any investigative analysis or conclusion, there was no occasion for the High Court to itself presumptuously extricate the respondent from the web, woven by the identity of circumstances jointly hovering upon both the accused; the impugned exercise transcends beyond the barriers of tentative assessment; it throws the entire prosecution case to the wind, an option neither contemplated by law nor falling with the remit of “further inquiry”; a case for intervention stands made out. Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order dated 20.05.2020 is set aside and bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 8th February, 2021 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.69-Q of 2019 (Against the judgment dated 09-8-2019 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Crl. AppealNo.330/2017) Manzoor Ahmed Akhtar …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani, ASC For the State: Syed Abdul Baqar Shah, ASC at Islamabad along with Wallayat Hussain Addl. P.G. Balochistan at Quetta Date of hearing: 09.09.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- The petitioner, a Secondary School Teacher, was tried on a criminal charge that resulted into his conviction; guilty verdict, upheld throughout, alongside corporal consequences risked him his job as well. After his release, he successfully hoodwinked the department by presenting a fake decision of High Court of Balochistan, purporting to have acquitted him from the charge, as a consequence whereof, he was given posting again in the department with all benefits through condonation of absence period as earned leave. On an application, the Anti Corruption Department initiated inquiry against the petitioner and co-accused Nazeer, an office Superintendent, blamed to have facilitated him in betraying the public exchequer. A learned Special Judge acquitted the co-accused by extending him benefit of the doubt, however, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as under: “U/s 409 PPC, 10-years RI with fine of Rs.80,000/- U/s 420 PPC, 7-years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/- U/s 467 PPC, 10-years RI with fine of Rs.80,000/- U/s 468 PPC, 7-years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/- Criminal Petition No.69-Q of 2019 2 U/s 471 PPC, 7-years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/- U/s 5(2)47 PCA, 4-years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/- The High Court modified the judgment by setting aside petitioner’s conviction under sections 409, 420 & 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, however, maintained the guilty verdict on the remainder charges with addition of conviction under section 466 of the Code ibid vide impugned judgment dated 9-8-2019, vires whereof, are being assailed on the ground that after prosecution’s failure on the main charges, the only option available to the High Court was to record clean acquittal. It is further argued that acquittal of office Superintendent, indicted for being privy to the crime also demolished prosecution case qua the petitioner as well; he emphatically disowned the fake judgment. The learned Law Officer, assisted by Syed Abdul Baqar Shah, ASC, has faithfully defended the impugned judgment; 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Petitioner’s prosecution and his conviction on a criminal charge is an admitted position; the judgment on the basis whereof he managed his posting was found fake; it is on the basis thereof that the petitioner not only manipulated his service but also derived benefit thereof and, thus, his disclaimer regarding the fake judgment merits outright rejection; he cannot disown a fake judgment relating to the case wherein he was tried and convicted and, thus, being the sole and obvious beneficiary now cannot escape consequences of ill-gotten gains; his treachery came into the knowledge of the Anti-Corruption Department when the co-villagers laid information of the mischief, paving way for his prosecution. Acquittal of office Superintendent, seemingly out of abundant caution, does not tremor the charge, distinctly and inexorably pointed upon petitioner’s culpability; he has rightly been convicted and sentenced and the findings recorded by the Courts below have not been found by us as open to any exception. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 9th September, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.691 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 3.4.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Cr.MBA No.446-P of 2020) Shehryar Khan .…Petitioner(s) Versus The State and another ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Asad Ullah Khan Chamkani, ASC For the State: Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC Gul Wali, Inspector/I.O. For the Complainant: Mr. Riazat ul Haq, ASC Date of hearing: 03.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Shehryar Khan, petitioner, attributed a fatal shot to Sabir-ur-Rehman, deceased, in his mid 60s, at 9:30 a.m. on 13.04.2019, within the remit of Police Station Daduzai Peshawar, in the backdrop of a dispute over immovable property, seeks admission to bail, primarily on the strength of a ‘cross version’ structured upon a fire arm injury, sustained by Majid Khan, co-accused, no other than his real brother, medically examined under a police docket on the fateful day. Petitioner, after the incident, stayed away from law and was, accordingly, proceeded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; he was finally taken into custody on 12.02.2020. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. It would be less than expedient to comment upon the merits of the prosecution case, bracing a cross version set up on an injury, sustained by the co-accused, pressed into service with vehemence to construct hypothesis of self defence, a controversy to be best settled by the Criminal Petition No.691 of 2020 2 trial Court. Argument regarding suppression of injury sustained by Majid, co-accused, in the face of identical suppression in the cross version regarding the fatal shot on to the deceased, does not bring petitioner’s case at a higher pedestal so as to be received with favour. Saddled with the responsibility of the fatal shot, petitioner’s absence from law, additionally, stands in impediment to his release on bail. Given the role attributed to the petitioner, existence of a cross version, veracity whereof is yet to be settled, by itself would not bring his case within the purview of further probe. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 3rd August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Ghulam Raza/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No. 692 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 9.3.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr.M.BA. No.236-P/2020) Ikhtiar Khan …Petitioner(s) Versus Sarfraz Khan & another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Asad Ullah Khan Chamkani, ASC For the State: Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Assistant Advocate General KPK along with Kabir, I.O. Date of hearing: 06.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Akbar Khan, Wattey, Alamzaib, Khawaja Muhammad, Hidayat Ullah and Misbah Ullah were on way to attend proceedings in a Court of Session when the petitioner along with co-accused intercepted them at 7:30 a.m. on 13.8.2003 within the precincts of Police Station Batgram District Charsadda; in the wake of indiscriminate firing, the vehicle boarded by the deceased plunged into the nearby canal; none survived the assault; he stayed away from law for considerable span of time and surrendered after acquittal of some of the co-accused on the strength whereof he sought bail albeit with no success. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Acquittal of some of the co-accused, has not been received as a valid ground for petitioner’s release on bail, both by the Court of Session as well as the High Court, a view found by us as unexceptionable. Statements of the witnesses supported by medical Criminal Petition No. 692 of 2020 2 evidence and recovery from the spot constitute “reasonable grounds” within the contemplation of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, aggravated by petitioner’s inordinate absence going on for an age, standing insurmountably in impediment to his release on bail, a concession discretionary in nature. View taken by the High Court, being well within the bounds of law, does not call for interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 6th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 701 OF 2023 (On appeal against the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 12514-B/2023) Ch. Saeed Ahmed Khalil … Petitioner Versus The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Malik Jawwad Khalid, ASC Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR a/w petitioner in person For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Ashgar Ali, SI/IO Mr. Ahsanullah, SI, Incharge Investigation For the Complainant: Mr. Muhammad Javed Ch, ASC Date of Hearing: 11.08.2023 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 464 dated 18.03.2020 under Sections 420/468/471 PPC at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime report is that the petitioner’s son namely Furqan Saeed was employed in the complainant’s factory wherein the spare parts of the motorbikes were manufactured and its scrap was used to be sold in the market. The said Furqan Saeed used to take scrap from factory and got it weighed. Allegedly, he used to get two receipts, one of full weight and the second of lesser weight and despite receiving full amount used to deposit less amount to the Criminal Petition No. 701/2023 2 factory. On suspicion, the record was checked and the son of the petitioner was found to have caused a loss of Rs.700,00,000/- to the complainant. The petitioner has been implicated through a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 26.06.2023. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and the prosecution story is not worthy of credit. Contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the subsequent story put forth by the complainant in his supplementary statement recorded after three months of lodging of FIR does not appeal to a prudent mind. Contends that the principal accused namely Furqan Saeed has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment to be meted out. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner has specifically been nominated by the complainant in the supplementary statement with a specific role of depriving him of a huge amount, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their able assistance. 6. As per the contents of the crime report, the complainant is the CEO of Yousaf Engineering (Pvt) Ltd where spare parts of motorcycle are manufactured and its scrap is sold to the scrap dealers. The son of the petitioner namely Furqan Saeed was servant of the complainant, who had been taking scrap to get it weighed and later sold to scrap dealer. Allegedly, the said Furqan Saeed used to obtain two receipts, one of full weight and the later of less weight and used to deposit the amount in factory in accordance with the receipt of less weight and thereby caused a loss of Rs.700,00,000/- to the complainant. We have noted that the complainant nominated the present petitioner and his other family members in his supplementary Criminal Petition No. 701/2023 3 statement recorded on 26.06.2023 after lapse of more than three months and eight days of the occurrence. A bare perusal of the record depicts that the entire fraudulent transaction took place in a span of more than two years and no specific dates for commission of fraud have been given. The only basis to involve the petitioner in the case was the detail of his bank account, as the complainant suspected that the principal accused Furqan Saeed would have deposited the amount in petitioner’s account. It is the case of the petitioner that his son Furqan Saeed was running a joint business with the complainant and he never received any salary from him. We have been informed that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Mst. Nighat Saeed, Waqas Zafar and Usman Saeed have been granted pre-arrest bail whereas the principal accused Furqan Saeed has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction. In these circumstances any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would be entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali and others Vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424). Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been involved in the case by throwing a wider net by the complainant. Mere fraud of huge amount is no ground to decline bail to an accused. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). This Court in a number of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that another case of similar nature has been registered against the petitioner is concerned, mere registration of Criminal Petition No. 701/2023 4 other criminal case against an accused does not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits he has a prima facie case. Reliance is placed on Moundar and others Vs. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt. 7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2023. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 11th of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 714 OF 2023 (On appeal against the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No. 531-B/2023) Noman Khaliq … Petitioner Versus The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner: Mr. Asad Mehmood Abbasi, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the Complainant: In person For the State: Mr. Rifaqat Ali Khokhar, ASC as state counsel ICT Mr. Muhammad Ishaq, Inspector Date of Hearing: 11.08.2023 JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, with a prayer to grant post- arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 372/15 dated 08.10.2015 under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he had business relations with the complainant. The complainant gave an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- to the petitioner for doing business on the pretext that whatever profit he will earn, he will share half of the same with the complainant. Allegedly, the petitioner earned a profit of Criminal Petition No. 714/2023 -: 2 :- Rs.800,000/- and considering the half of the same to be of the complainant, the petitioner owed an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the complainant. The petitioner gave three cheques to the complainant for the said amount but they were dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the petitioner and the complainant were running a joint business and the cheques were not issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Contends that even if the claim of the complainant is believed, even then at the most he can file a civil suit for recovery of the amount. Contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about five months and his further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Contends that maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by complainant in person has defended the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has deprived the complainant of a huge amount and he remained absconder for 08 years, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their assistance. 6. As per the contents of the crime report, the petitioner and the complainant had business relations. The complainant gave an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- to the petitioner for doing business on the pretext that whatever profit he will earn, he will share half of the same with the complainant. Allegedly, the petitioner earned a profit of Rs.800,000/- and considering the half of the same to be of the complainant, the petitioner owed an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the complainant. The petitioner Criminal Petition No. 714/2023 -: 3 :- gave three cheques to the complainant for the said amount but they were dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. However, it is the stance of the petitioner that the cheques were not issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation and the same were issued in respect of the joint business. Admittedly, the petitioner and the complainant were in business relations. This Court in the case of Abdul Saboor Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 592) has categorically held that Section 489-F of PPC is not a provision which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount, rather for recovery of any amount, civil proceedings provide remedies, inter alia, under Order XXXVII of CPC. In this view of the matter, the question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about five months. The maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir Vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). This Court in a number of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations. We have been informed that all the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. So far as the argument of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for. Reliance is placed on Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 SC 477) & Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt. Criminal Petition No. 714/2023 -: 4 :- 7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 11th of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 715 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc.No.18050- B/2021) Muhammad Usman Shakir … Petitioner VERSUS The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Javed Imran Ranjha, ASC For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Tariq, Inspector For the Complainant: Nemo Date of Hearing: 09.09.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 103/2021 dated 06.02.2021 under Section 408 PPC at Police Station Defence-B, District Lahore. The same relief was denied to him by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.03.2021 as well as by the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 21.06.2021. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the petitioner was working as Accounts Assistant in M/s Nippon Paint. The said company was running a scheme under which after opening a paint box, a token of certain amount would come out and on its return, the Company would re-pay the amount to the holder of the token. Pursuant to an audit report, it was found that the petitioner instead of entering the tokens in the computer system sent them back for redemption in the market due to which a loss of about forty million rupees was caused to the company. Criminal Petition No. 715/2021 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances of this case. Contends that the prosecution has leveled allegation of fraud to the tune of rupees forty million but could not adduce any evidence in this regard except the bald statements of three shopkeepers recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C at a belated stage. Contends that the prosecution has not substantiated sufficient material so far against the petitioner whereas co-accused of the petitioner with similar role has already been granted bail by the learned High Court vide order dated 01.04.2021. Further contends that following the rule of consistency, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. Lastly contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.02.2021 without any trial, hence, keeping in view the principle that basic law is bail not jail, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail was declined to the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner along with his co-accused has caused a huge loss to the company and he is specifically named in the crime report with the specific role, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. There are basically two main ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 408 PPC, (i) entrustment of property, (ii) misappropriation with mens rea. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law clearly reflects that the words ‘clerk’ or ‘servant’ have been mentioned in it. To establish criminal liability against an employee other than incorporated in the aforesaid provision, it seems essential to establish that the person against whom the accusation has been leveled clearly falls within the categories disclosed by the Legislature. Even while stretching the aforesaid provision of law, we deem it appropriate to evaluate the merits of the case, which could be a decisive factor in adjudication of the matter. Undeniably, the allegation against the petitioner is of causing huge loss of rupees forty million to the company by re-selling the tokens in Criminal Petition No. 715/2021 3 the market, which were already redeemed. To substantiate the allegation, the prosecution has recorded the statements of three shopkeepers. Allegedly, the tokens amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- and a cash amount of Rs.200,000/- was recovered from the petitioner. Unless and until the nexus between the amount recovered from the petitioner and loss occurred is established with exactitude especially when the contents of the crime report do not disclose the denomination/value and number of tokens utilized for causing loss to the company, the petitioner cannot be held guilty and kept behind the bars. Mere statements of three shopkeepers prima facie do not seem sufficient to curtail the liberty of a person for an indefinite period especially when the co-accused of the petitioner namely Abdul Rehman Khalil from whom the tokens of Rs.12,00,000/- were recovered has been granted bail by the learned High Court vide order dated 01.04.2021. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief following the rule of consistency. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9) wherein this Court held as under:- “Without going into the merits of the case and the various rulings mentioned in the petition for leave to appeal requiring our consideration and interpretation, we think that the petitioner should be released on bail on the principle of requirement of consistency in the same case and for the similar reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar to that of the petitioner was attributed had been so released by another learned Judge of the same High Court.” 6. Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to his guilt. The alleged offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since 16.02.2021 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period till the conclusion of the lengthy trial. 7. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and Criminal Petition No. 715/2021 4 admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 9th of September, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.716 of 2019 (against the impugned order dated 13.6.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Misc.No.14549-B/2019). Husnain Mustafa …Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bushra Qamar, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State : Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, D.P.G. Punjab. Akram and Tanvir, Sub-Inspectors. Date of Hearing : 12.09.2019. O R D E R Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen, 9/10, Kaniz Fatima, 7/8 and Muhammad Ibrahim, 4/5 were living with their mother Aneeqa Rasheed after termination of her marriage with their father Qaisar Amin, shifted at Karachi for good; on 24-3-2018, he learnt about homicidal deaths of his children in the residential flat of his former wife; he rushed to Lahore and lodged a report wherein he blamed Aneeqa Rasheed and Husnain Mustafa, present petitioner, to have killed the children; he maintained that his former wife was carrying on with the petitioner and they wanted to get rid of the children, seemingly an obstruction in their affair. As the investigation progressed, the first Investigating Officer let off the petitioner albeit with finding of his liaison with Aneeqa Rasheed; after change of investigation, however, the petitioner alongside Aneeqa Rasheed and Ayyaz Mehmood were sent to face trial; subsequently, the Criminal Petition No.716 of 2019 2 complainant exonerated Aneeqa Rasheed; she was released on bail on the basis of a concessionary statement made by no other than the complainant himself; it was subsequent thereto that she instituted a private complaint against the petitioner and Ayyaz Mehmood co-accused wherein she blamed both of them to have committed the murders within her view; she also contradicted the case set up in the crime report by accusing the police to have collaborated with the accused; unimpressed by the position taken by Aneeqa Rasheed, learned Additional Sessions Judge, after recording precursory evidence, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23-5-2019. In this backdrop, prosecution case is structured upon a positive polygraph test of the petitioner alongside statements of Muhammad Waseem Abbas and Ali Zaib recorded as late as on 9-7-2018; they claimed to have seen the petitioner on the crime scene in the morning of 24-3-2018; the complainant arrayed Ayyaz Mudassir as privy to the crime in supplementary statement dated 10-7-2018. 2. Heard. 3. Brutality inflicted upon the innocent souls is most appalling to say the least, however, in the chequered circumstances of the case, what cannot be lost sight of is that the complainant, though most grievously aggrieved and devastated, nonetheless, is not eye witness of the crime; his initial belief that the petitioner in connivance with his former wife murdered the children is essentially structured upon a suspicion; he has even recalled a substantial portion thereof while exonerating identically placed Aneeqa Rasheed before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore on 19-12-2018. Subsequently inducted co-accused Ayyaz Mehmood, with alleged active participation in the crime is on bail. Polygraph test, a modern forensic method to unearth the truth, may establish a person’s capacity to lie, however, findings thereof, cannot be equated with admission of guilt. Transposition of Aneeqa Rasheed as a witness with her failure to prosecute the Criminal Petition No.716 of 2019 3 petitioner through a private complaint constitutes her departure from the scene and as such squarely brings his case within the ambit of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Statements of Waseem Abbbas and Ali Zaib recorded after an unexplained, inordinate delay also require evidential verification during the trial. Horrors of an heinous crime cannot impede release of accused on bail, if otherwise his guilt called for further probe nor bail can be withheld as a strategy for punishment. The petition is converted into an appeal and allowed; petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. JUDGE Islamabad, the 12th September, 2019 Azmat/* JUDGE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 717 OF 2023 (On appeal against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 27358-B/2023) Zafar Nawaz … Petitioner Versus The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner: Syed Muhammad Saqlain Rizvi, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Muhammad Asif, SI Date of Hearing: 22.08.2023 JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 1155 dated 22.10.2021 under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Samanabad, District Lahore, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime report is that the petitioner was tenant of the complainant and did not pay rent for the period of one and half year. When the complainant demanded rent from the petitioner, he issued him a cheque amounting to Rs.16,50,000/- but the same was dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against Criminal Petition No. 717/2023 -: 2 :- the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the cheque was not issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Contends that even if the claim of the complainant is believed, even then at the most he can file a case before the Rent Controller for recovery of the rent. Contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months and his further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Contends that maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has deprived the complainant of a huge amount and other cases of similar nature have also been lodged against him, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their assistance. 6. As per the contents of the crime report, the petitioner was tenant of the complainant and allegedly did not pay rent for the period of one and half year. When the complainant demanded rent from the petitioner, he issued him a cheque amounting to Rs.16,50,000/- but the same was dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. However, it is the stance of the petitioner that for the same claim, the complainant had lodged two more FIRs against the petitioner with an intent to extort money from him. It is further his stance that nothing is payable by him and the amount of the cheque in the present case is the bogus claim of the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner was tenant of the complainant and prima facie any claim for recovery of rent falls within the domain of Rent Controller. In this view of the matter, the question whether the cheque was issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months. The maximum punishment provided under the statute Criminal Petition No. 717/2023 -: 3 :- for the offence under Section 489-F PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir Vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). This Court in a number of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations. We have been informed that all the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. So far as the argument of the learned Law Officer that other cases of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner is concerned, mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused does not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits he has a prima facie case. Reliance is placed on Moundar and others Vs. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934), Muhammad Rafiq Vs. State (1997 SCMR 412), Syeda Sumera Andaleeb Vs. The State (2021 SCMR 1227) & Nazir Ahmed @ Bhaga Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1467). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt. 7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 22nd of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

1 ن�� � ِ�ا� (�ا �� ِر�ا) :د��   � ب��� �� ، � ،ن� � �ود � ب�   ىرا����ى� �ا تز�ا ِل� �ا� �ا٧٢٤/٢٠١٦ ) � ِ�ز٣(١٨٥ ِ �آ،ل� �� ن�� ١٩٧٣�  ِف�)  � ،ر�� �� ِ�ا�ر�و� � ،�ر�وہر� ١٦۔٠٥۔ ٢٠١٦  ىرا�� رد �اى�٢٠١٦/١٧٩( م�ا � ��)( م� ر��وہ� � با�)ن�( �� ��: از� زا� �ا ب�، ��  �و� ِ�ا� ہ� � ��ر �� ِ�ا� �و � ،(�� �)  ��� ل�: � ��� :�� ِ�ر� ٠٦ �، ٢٠١٦ ؁ ء Crl.P.L.A. No. 724 of 2016 2 � ۔:� ،ن� � �ود  �� � :�� � � ل�٢ �ر� � د� ��٢١۔٠٨۔٢٠١٣ �ارا �رز � ٣٠ ل�٧ � � چ� م�ا � �� � � �� جرد م� � نا�د روا � �ا � ِ ل�ا � �� و سا �� �ا � �ر � �� ِ� � �� �� � �ار � � ت� � � ىرا� �  � ادا ىر� ِ�ا � روا �ا� ِلد� � �� ِ� � � � �� � � ت�ر ِر� را� �ا� �� � � � � �� �� ل� � ت��ا � �  �ر �� � سُا � � �ار �  ں�� � �ور سا � �� �� سا ۔� �� � ت�ر ِر� �� ِ� � � ِدا�ا � � � � �� � �ا�رد ى�� � � روا � �ار � �� ت�ر٣٨  ACE/HQ-  ��  �ر� ر�و� � ، �د ر�٢١۔٠٨۔٢٠١٣ �د ِ�ز �٥) �د �ذ٢ ن�� � �� ت�ر ِدا�ا(  �د روا١٦١ ِ�ِتا�� ۔� � جرد � � ن�� ٢۔  ��ڈ �� � �ا�رد � � �و� � � ر�و� � �� ر� �� � ل� ،   � �� ر� ٹر�ر � �اورر� �ا ہ� روا �ر� �� �� ٔ�� ۔�د � � ہد� ر� �� � �ا� ٹ� ��  � �� ِ� روا � جرد س� �ا � �� �� تا� � � �  �ا� � م� � ےد �او �ا� � م� �ر �� � ت�ر � ۔� � � �� � � �  � �� ل� �ر� ��� �� � ر �و۔� �آ� � � � م� �� ٹ� � تا� ٣۔  � �� ِ�� ِنارو� ہ��� � � ر� ى� ؤ�د  �� �ار �ا� ِنو� � �آ �  � سا ع� ِنارود �� �� �� د� � روا � �� �� فا�ا � ن� �� �ا � وُر �  ى�� � � و � � �� �� �ز �� �اورر� � روا �� �اد �� ِف� �ا�رد  ف� � م� �� � � � � �� � �� � �ا� �ا � ۔� �ر � ىرا��د �� ؤ�د روا �� � � � �� � �� � ن�� ہو ا� � � �آ � تد� �� �� � �د تد  �� ِ�ا� �ا�ا � تر� �ا روا � ا� �� � ن�� ى�� ف� � سا � � ض� �  �� م�� � �د را� ��ا ى� � م� � م� �� روا ��ا ےڑور � ہار � ف�ا � � � �� ِ�ا� �ا�ا � �د ا� �  ن�� �ور زا ��ا � زا�ا � � ��آ � � �ا سا Crl.P.L.A. No. 724 of 2016 3  � � گ� �ا �� � �� � مو� و مز� ��د/ �د ا� � � �� ِن�� � � � ہا� �ا  � �� �د ن� � ف�ا ِم�د�۔� �� �� � �� راد غاد روا � و � ٤۔  ح� � ٹ� �� � ہ�د ت�ر � � ر�ا � �ا� � �� ِ�و � م�/ �� � � �و �� � �� �آ� � � � �� � � �د � زا� � سا � م� � � ن�  را� روا � ت� �� � ��آ �ذ � �� � �د � � ر� ��ز � � �ر � �� �  ب� �� � � ��و � ��آ �� � � � قا� زا� � � م� ۔ے� ل�و � � ����� ��آ � روا م� �ا � � سا ىراد �ذ � روا � � � ت�  �� � � � � � � د�  ��آ � م�� ل�و �د �ر � � � � ز� � � روا ڈر�ر � جار�ا � سا س� � سُا � �  � �� ہا� ِر� �� ِ�� ِنارود � سا �د � ��ز � ل� را� � � � �� ۔� د�� ۔� � � ٥۔  �ر� � � ِ�ز � �� ِ�ا� ��ا١٦۔٠٥۔٢٠١٦� � ا� � �� � ��   � � �ر � � و � ىر� � � � �� �� ت�ر �� � � ما�ا �� � � ىر� � � �و �ء ر � � � ے�� ےر� � ر�ر � �� � قو� �� � �� ��ا� � ك� ِ�  �� � ںود�� �ا� � � سا روا � �ر��و سا �� � � ا� ء  � �د �� �� �  � � �� � � �� �و� � سا �ا �� ۔ �������� �� ب�ا � � ں�ا� � � � فدا�  ��د �� م� دازآ � � ىدازآ ِ� � � روا � �� � �د� �ا�ا� � دادا� ِ� � �� ت�ر ۔� ے سا � �� �� � �ا�/ م� �� ا� � � � � ں�� ث� �   �او � �ور � سا � ، � �د تز�ا ن�� � � �د� �ا� � �� ا� ۔� ج� �� �و ل ا �� ۔ ے� ب�ا � � �� �� � �� � � ا� � � � سا � �� �  �ا�� � �� � ��ا � � ے�� روا ��ر �د � � � �� �ذ � � ں� ۔� � �  م� � �� ت�ر ل� � ل� ں�  � نا � ں�� ��� � � � � ىرو�  ��� � م� ےر� � �و � �� � ما� � � � چ� �ور ںوڑو� � � �اڈ �  � ۔�آ � � �� � � �� را��در�ا � ں� نا �ا � � � چ� � م�ر ہد� ادا  � ن�� �ا ا�� �� �� ��د � م� �ا� روا ف�ا �  � �� ۔ � ��ا ى� � �  �ا ر�� � � ك� �� ��ا � � ا� �� � �اد �ا�� �� ف� � �  روا � Crl.P.L.A. No. 724 of 2016 4  � � � � �ر � � �� ىر� ا� � � �� � � �� سا �� د� زا �رذ � � ہر�ود ۔�� � �� � ٦۔ �� �� ِت����� �ا�ا � ا� �ا  � �ا ِتز�ا ِل� روا � �� � در � � ۔� �� � د� ��ا ٧۔  �� � ھ� � �ا� � �� روا۔� � � �آ م�ا،د٦� ٢٠١٦� (ر� � � ��ا) �و �ا

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED Criminal Petition No.73-P of 2021 (On appeal against the judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. Misc. B.A. No.663-P/2021) Abdul Razzaq … Petitioner Versus The State … Respondents For the Petitioner : Syed Abdul Fayaz, ASC For the State For the Complainant : : Mr. Shumail Aziz, Advocate General, KP with Zahid, I.O. In person. Date of Hearing : 17.09.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. – Zahid Shah, 18/19, was spotted dead on 17.1.2021 within the precincts of Police Station Landi Kotal, District Khyber; his uncle Shoqi Muhammad reported the incident to police without mentioning the accused or motive for the crime. Autopsy conducted at 10:45 a.m. on 18.1.2021 noted two firearm entry wounds on the skull, inflicted within the preceding 9 to 18 hours; as the investigation progressed, the petitioner was hauled up as a suspect on the basis of statements of Iqrar Hussain and Roman PWs, recorded as late as on 29.1.2021; according to the witnesses, the petitioner had borrowed a .30 caliber pistol which he subsequently returned to them; the pistol was produced by the witnesses to the police and it was forensically found wedded with the casings, secured from the spot. The High Court considered the evidence, sufficient to Cr.P.73-P/2021 2 constitute “reasonable grounds” and declined bail vide impugned order dated 19.03.2021. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Be that as it may, the question as to whether .30 caliber pistol presented to the police by the prosecution witnesses, shown to have ejected casings of the fatal shots can be attributed to the petitioner so as to conclusively saddle him with the culpability of crime in the absence of any other evidence is certainly an issue that needs to be settled after recording of evidence. In the school leaving certificate, petitioner’s date of birth is recorded as 6.9.2004, bringing his status within the remit of juvenility with concomitant concessions available to him under the law. Even otherwise, investigation being complete, petitioner’s continuous detention is not likely to improve upon prosecution’s case; a case for his release on bail stands made out. Petition is converted into appeal and allowed; the petitioner/appellant shall be released, pending his trial, upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 17th September, 2021 Azmat/*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 733-L OF 2018 (On appeal against judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 65533/2017) Barkhurdar … Petitioner VERSUS The State and another … Respondents For the Petitioner: Rai Zamir-ul-Hassan, ASC (Through video link from Lahore) For the State: Mr. Irfan Zia, DPG, Punjab Date of Hearing: 09.06.2023 JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- The petitioner was proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 69 dated 27.04.2017 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Kandiwal, District Chiniot as ten kilograms poppy plant was recovered from him. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 14.07.2017 convicted the petitioner under Section 9 (c) of the CNSA, 1997, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for eleven years with fine of Rs.15,500/- or in default whereof to further undergo SI for eight months. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour. The learned High Court vide impugned judgment maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. 2. The prosecution story as narrated in the impugned judgment reads as under:- Criminal Petition No. 733-L/2018 2 “2. The prosecution story as alleged in the FIR lodged on the written complaint of Rashid Hassan, ASI (PW-2), the complainant is that on 27.04.2017, the complainant (PW-2) along with Jaffer Ali 219/C (given up PW), Jaffer Ali 220/C (PW-3) and Saba Hussain 500/High Court (given up PW) was present at Thatha Sargana in connection with patrolling, in the meanwhile, the complainant (PW- 2) received a secret information that the accused-Barkhurdar while carrying poppy plants, was coming towards Jhanda Burj from chowk Sheraykianwala and if a raid was conducted, the accused- Barkhurdar could have been apprehended, whereupon the complainant along with police party reached at the spot and overpowered the accused-Barkhurdar. During search, poppy plants weighing 10 kilograms were recovered from the sack, which was taken into possession by the complainant (PW-2) vide recovery memo (Ex.PB). Out of the recovered substance, a sample of poppy plants weighing 500 grams was separated for narcotic analysis by embossing a seal of BH. Thereafter, the complainant (PW-2) drafted a complaint (Ex.PA/1) and sent the same to the police station through Saba Hussain 500/High Court (given up PW) for registration of formal FIR.” 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the Police has planted a fake case upon him. Contends that the allegedly recovered poppy straw is largely used for fodder of animals, therefore, it should not be considered as narcotics substance. In support of the argument, he relied on Zulfiqar @ Zulfa Vs. The State (2021 SCMR 531). Lastly contends that the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the petitioner are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set at naught. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner was caught red handed with a huge quantity of narcotics and the Police had no enmity with him to falsely implicate him in the present case, therefore, he deserves no leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Law Officer and have perused the case record. Criminal Petition No. 733-L/2018 3 6. As per the prosecution story, on a spy information that the petitioner is carrying a huge quantity of narcotics, the Police party set a blockade and apprehended the petitioner and recovered poppy plants weighing ten kilograms from him. However, there is nothing in evidence as to what actually was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Was it only the doda/basket/pouch or it was the whole plant with stems and flowers. In Zulfiqar @ Zulfa Vs. The State (2021 SCMR 531) this Court while relying on earlier judgments of this Court has defined as to what actually is the poast/opium. It would be in order to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment, which reads as under:- “In Section 2(t) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, ‘opium’ has been defined as under:- “(t) “opium” means:- (i) poppy straw, that is to say, all parts of the poppy plant (papaver somniferum or any other species of Papaver) after mowing, other than the seeds, (ii) the spontaneously coagulated juice of capsules of poppy which has not been submitted to any manipulations other than those necessary for packing and transport; and (iii) any mixture, with or without natural materials, of any of the above forms of opium, but does not includes any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine;” 7. As per definition clause of CNSA, after mowing, all parts of the poppy plant except seeds are considered to be poppy straw. However, this Court in the case reported as Taimoor Khan Vs. State (2016 SCMR 621) while referring to earlier judgment of this Court reported at Muhammad Imran v. The State (2011 SCMR 1954) has held that it is only the basket, sack or pouch (also known as ‘Doda’) excluding the seeds, which contains narcotic substance and that all poppy straw may not necessarily be ‘poast’/doda because poppy straw can be any other part of the mowed poppy plant as well, excluding the seeds. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “What exactly is that which is called 'Poast'? It has been agreed before us by the learned counsel for all the parties and it is also borne out from the authoritative works referred to above that in the local parlance Poast is the name given to that part of a poppy plant which has the shape of a basket, sack or pouch and it contains the seeds of such plant. Criminal Petition No. 733-L/2018 4 This natural pouch or bulb made of the skin of the plant is meant by the nature to hold and protect the seeds of the plant contained therein. In some parts of this country this natural pouch of the poppy plant is also known as Doda. The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 calls this part of a poppy plant as 'capsule' of poppy and this finds a specific mention in section 2(t) (ii) of the said Act. The authoritative works mentioned above as well as the learned counsel for all the parties before us are also in agreement that if an unripe capsule of a poppy plant is given an incision then a fluid oozes out of the same containing meconic acid and a number of alkaloids including narcotine and morphine which fluid thickens within a short time and becomes brown in colour and such substance is pure opium. It is also agreed at all hands that even ripe and dry capsules of poppy contain morphine and other alkaloids, i.e. opium, although less in quantity, which can be used for sedative and narcotic action. Most of the authoritative works produced by the learned counsel for the parties also confirm that alkaloids can be extracted even from a mature and dry plant of poppy or poppy straw whether it is in its natural shape or is in a crushed form. However, the seeds contained in a capsule of a poppy are free from morphine. After its mowing every part of a poppy plant, including its capsule/Poast/Doda but excluding the seeds, is generally called poppy straw and, thus, every Post/Doda is a part of a poppy straw but all poppy straw may not necessarily be Poast/Doda because poppy straw can be any other part of the mowed poppy plant as well, excluding the seeds. 8. From the above, it is clear that ‘Poast’ is the name given to that part of a poppy plant which has the shape of a basket, sack or pouch and it contains the seeds of such plant.” 7. In the Zulfiqar supra case, the Court further observed that in common parlance, it has been seen that oftenly stems and leaves of the poppy plants are used as animal food. The plant can reach the height of about 1-5 meters (3-16 feet). The poppy plant is a spontaneous plant and is often seen grown on roadsides. Poppy straw is derived from the plant Papaver somniferum, which has been cultivated in many countries of Europe and Asia for centuries. This has medicinal impact as well, which is largely used as a tonic for wellness of nervous system. The purpose of its cultivation was actually the production of poppy seeds. The latter is used as a food stuff and as a raw material for manufacturing poppy-seed oil, which is used for making various varnishes, paints and soaps etc. Therefore, every cultivation of poppy straw unless it is proved that it is made for the sole purpose of extracting narcotics after a proper method cannot be considered a criminal act. It has also not been brought on Criminal Petition No. 733-L/2018 5 record as to whether from the ten kilograms of the recovered poppy plant, how much quantity was the sack/pouch/doda as it is only the sack/pouch/doda which contains narcotic substance. Therefore, in absence of such report, it is difficult to determine as to whether the case against the petitioner falls within the purview of Section 9(a), 9(b) or 9(c) of the Act. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitles the petitioner to the right of benefit of the doubt. It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. 8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail unless detained/required in any other case. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 9th of June, 2023 Not Approved For Reporting Khurram

1 ن�� � ِ�ا� (�ا �� ِر�ا) :د��   � ب��� �� ، � ،ن� � �ود � ب�  ىرا��ى� �ا تز�ا ِل� �ا� �ا��٧٤٨/٢٠١٦ ) � ِ�ز٣(١٨٥ ِ �آ،ل� �� ن�� ١٩٧٣�  ِف�)  �� ى�وار ،ر�� �� ِ�ا� ،ار ى�وہر� ١٠۔٠٦۔ ٢٠١٦  ىرا�� رد ���ى� �ا�رد٢٠١٦/١٩( � ر�ا ��)( م� �ا ہ�وہ� � با�)ن�( �� ��: ى�ز د� �، ��  �و� ِ�ا� � �ا ىر��� ِ�ا� �و � ،  ��� ل�: � ��� :�� ِ�ر� ٠٦ �، ٢٠١٦؁ Crl.P.L.A. No. 748 of 2016 2 � ۔:� ،ن� � �ود  �� � :��  � � �� ِنا� �ا�� � �� ،� ى�وار ،ر�� �� ِ�ا�  ہر� � � ى�وار١٠۔٠٦۔٢٠١٦ ��� ِف� ��۔   � �� � ��د � �� ِ�و �� ۔� ہ�� � دا� د�� � �� � روا � ٢۔ � � ل �ا ہ� � �� � �١٣٩�� ��ہ ہر� ى�وار �٠٦۔٠٨۔٢٠١٣   � � �ر � �� � م� ِد� ى�وار � � ��ا �ا� � �� � � ن�� �� �د ۔� ٣۔ ارودِ�� ِن � �� �ر � � تد� � ��ا � �  �ا�رد �ا � �� ىرا� � �� ِ�ا� �ا�ا � ��و ِ�� � ں�ا � ��� � ��   � سا روا � ن� � �� �ر�ا ��ر �ا ��ڈ �(NADRA)  ل� � �� روا (ب) مر� � � ز�  �ر� �ا� ِ�ر� � سُا � � � � �� � � ہ� جرد �٠١۔٠١۔١٩٩٧ � جرد ۔ ِ�� � � � � �� � � � �� � � ڈر� �� �� �ا � ��  ل� � � � � �  � �ر� �ا� �ر� �٠١۔٠١۔١٩٩٧۔� جرد ٤۔ �ا ِ�ا� � ں�اد روا ں�� � � ��ا � م� � � � �� � �� ِ�� �ا  � ٹر�ر �ا � ں� � � �� �� �/� ل�  � � م�٢١�ا � � ، � �� ل�  ���/�� �ار��۔� �آ ِف� روا � � ہو روا � �ر � �  � �� ف� ى�ود  �� �ر�  �� �� �� � �ا� ہو� � تا�و�د � � � � � � ہد� ىر� � ۔� جرد � ڈر�ر � ل� روا ارد� � � � �و �ا� ِ�ر� � سُا ٥۔ ٹر�ر �� � �� � ى�� � ��د �ا � �� ِ�و � ��� د  � �� �� روا  �� � � � سا�� � � � � ل� م� � � �  � � � � �آ نارود � �� ِ�� ۔� �د � � ت� روا ك� Crl.P.L.A. No. 748 of 2016 3 ٦۔  ��� � �� ہو � � � ٹر�ر � �� ِ�� � ں�� � � � �ار �  � �آ ِف� � � ں��ا �و� � ن�� � � � � � �  �� X-Ray  ��� �  ��ا �ار � روا ك� � � � � ���/�� � � د� � � � ں�� �رذ � ں��  ہد�ز � ہد�ز � سا �� � ےد � � � �٢  ل�� � � � � ل� �ا � � �   �رد � سا روا �� � � �او � � �رذ � ں�� ��� � � �ر ل�ا �د�ر� � �� � نا روا � �ر � ن� �ا� �ا � � ےر� �� �� � � ںوزا�ا �ار ہد  ا� � � � �� � سا۔� �  ل� � � �� � سا ��ا �اد �ر � �� � �  � �� � جرد �ا� �ر� �� ا� �� ۔� � � � در ��� روا � � ر� ىدا�ا �  � � ارد� � �(ب) مر� روا �ر � � �ا� � �� �� �� � � �ادد� ہ� ظ  � جرد � م� �ا� �ر� � ن ِا � ل� � � ع�و � � تا�و�د ىر�� ں�ود ۔� �  ف� � � � �� �� ىر� روا � � م� �ا� ِ�ر� جرد � �ر � ل� ۔� � ط�  � در � �رذ � تد�� � � � � � �ار � ��� � ہر�� �ا� � � � � ہو� �  � �� � � �� در � �ادد� ىر�� �� �ر� � � ۔� � د�� تد� � � روا ۔�� ٧۔  ىرا�� تد� � ٹر�ر � ع� � ود �ا � � � ل�ُا � � ن�� روا ف�ا �  � � ��دا�ر وا تد� سا �ا� � ��آ� �ےد ہ�� � م� � � ےد �  تد� سا � � ِا ا� ۔� �� � � � ��ا � � � دا� روا ر� �ؤ� � � � � ى� �ا � � ل�ا � س ۔� � � � � ہ�� � سا � م� � ���ا �ا � � ں�  � �ذِ �� �� �ا�ا ِ�ا� �  � � سا �ا � �د � ل�و� ى�� � م� � �� � � �ا � ت�� � ع� سا �� � � � � � � �� � ں�� روا ں�اد ف� � � م� سُا � � مز� � �ا� � � ر�ود �  �او� � � �� � ظ� �ادد� ىر�� � تا�و�د ىر�� ہو � ےد �� �� � م�  � وُر � ن�� ن��� ن�� �� �� ے� � ت� � �� ��� � �ِ� � �ا �رذ � ہ�  �و� �ا� ا� ۔� �� �او �� �� � ر� ِر�ا � �ا� لا� �اورر� ِر�ا �ا �� �  � � � �� ِ�ا� روا ت�ا�ا ىرو� � � �� �� روا � � � �و� � � ��  �۔  �د � � �� ِ�و �� م� �  � �ور زا � ہار � م� � ىرا� �ا�رد � �� Crl.P.L.A. No. 748 of 2016 4 � � � �� � ٹو�ر � � � ن�� � ر� � ل�ُا � �� �َا � ف�ا ِم� ىرا�� ��  ۔� �� �� � ت�� �ا�د ل�ُا � �� � � � � ��  � �ا� � �ا � ل�ا سا � ن�� روا ف�ا � � �ز � �ا � �� ِ�ا� �� � � ل�ا �رد � تار�ا ا� �آ � � ر� � � � ��ا � � � ��� �� � � �  ۔� �� � ب�ا � �� � تز�ا � �ا ِل� روا � �� � در � �ا�� � �� ۔� جر� �اد ض� ٨۔ ۔� �� � ھ� � �ا� � � � �آ م�ا،د٦� ٢٠١٦� (ر� � � ��ا) �و �ا

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 (Against the order dated 04.07.2013 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1057-H of 2013) Ali Muhammad …Petitioner versus The State, etc. … Respondents For the petitioner: Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal, ASC with the petitioner and Muhammad Tariq present in person. On Court's call: Mst. Naseem Akhtar, alleged detenue For respondent No. 2: Muhammad Imran Khan, in person, with the Station House Officer of Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang For the State: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab with Mahmood, Ahmed, S.I. and Mahmood Hashmat, A.S.I./I.O. Date of hearing: 19.07.2013 JUDGMENT Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: In compliance with this Court's order dated 18.07.2013 the alleged detenue namely Mst. Naseem Akhtar has been produced before the Court from the relevant Dar-ul- Aman. Ali Muhammad petitioner and the two suitors of the alleged detenue, i.e. Muhammad Imran Khan (respondent No. 2) and Muhammad Tariq are also in attendance. Mst. Naseem Akhtar has stated her age to be about twenty-eight years and admittedly Ali Muhammad petitioner is her father whereas Muhammad Tariq Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 2 happens to be a maternal cousin of Mst. Naseem Akhtar. Muhammad Imran Khan respondent claims that he had got married to Mst. Naseem Akhtar on 14.05.2013 whereas Muhammad Tariq maintains that Mst. Naseem Akhtar had got married to him on 25.12.2012 and that their marriage is still intact. This assertion of Muhammad Tariq is accepted as correct not only by Ali Muhammad petitioner but also by Mst. Naseem Akhtar who has categorically and unequivocally stated before the Court that Muhammad Tariq is the only person with whom she had contracted marriage which marriage still subsists and that she had never contracted marriage with Muhammad Imran Khan respondent. Mst. Naseem Akhtar has clearly and vociferously stated that while living with her father namely Ali Muhammad petitioner she was not in any kind of confinement or under any restraint and that she wants to go back and live with her father. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that Muhammad Tariq had lodged FIR No. 101 at Police Station Shah Nikdar, District Sargodha on 10.08.2013 for an offence under section 496-A, PPC in respect of an alleged enticing away of Mst. Naseem Akhtar by Muhammad Imran Khan respondent and the said criminal case is still under investigation of the local police. We have also been apprised that on 26.06.2013 Mst. Naseem Akhtar had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against Muhammad Imran Khan respondent which suit is presently pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Sillanwali, District Sargodha. In the said suit Mst. Naseem Akhtar has claimed that she had never got married to Muhammad Imran Khan and that the said Muhammad Imran Khan ought to be restrained from maintaining or proclaiming that Mst. Naseem Akhtar is his lawfully wedded wife. 2. The relevant facts of the case referred to above unambiguously show that the alleged detenue namely Mst. Naseem Akhtar is a grown up young lady who acknowledges Muhammad Tariq as her lawfully wedded husband and refuses to accept Muhammad Imran Khan respondent as her spouse. The said categorical stand taken by Mst. Naseem Akhtar is also supported by her father namely Ali Muhammad petitioner. In that backdrop Muhammad Imran Khan respondent had filed Criminal Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 3 Miscellaneous No. 1057-H of 2013 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which petition had been filed under section 491, Cr.P.C. in the nature of habeas corpus seeking recovery of Mst. Naseem Akhtar from the custody of her father namely Ali Muhammad petitioner. On the basis of an order of the Court Mst. Naseem Akhtar was produced before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 01.07.2013 and on the said date the following order had been passed by the Court: "Mst. Naseem Akhtar, detenue, has been produced in the Court, who submits that she had contracted marriage with Muhammad Tariq on 15.12.2012 and the Nikahnama produced by the petitioner Muhammad Imran is forged one as she had not contracted marriage with him. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents wants to place on record certain documents showing that the petitioner's Nikahnama is a fake document. Counsel shall submit document on 04.07.2013. 3. In view of two Nikahnamas existed on record, it would be appropriate to send detenue to Dar-ul-Aman, Lahore, wherefrom she shall be produced in the Court on date fixed." On the next date of hearing, i.e. 04.07.2013 the learned Judge-in- Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had disposed of the said habeas corpus petition with the following order: "On the basis of existence of two Nikahnama on record in respect of Mst. Naseem Akhtar, she was lodged in Dar-ul-Aman, Lahore so that in the appropriate proceedings genuineness of the Nikahnamas could be adjudicated by the court of competent jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Mst. Naseem Akhtar has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage and she cannot be detained in the Dar-ul-Aman for an indefinite period, rather her abode in the Dar-ul-Aman would amount to illegal detention. 3. This contention of the learned counsel is untenable for the reason that the Court cannot allow a person to live in immoral life and for this purpose she has been sent to Dar-ul-Aman to save her from the commission of an offence. She would stay in the Dar-ul-Aman till the time her suit for jactitation of marriage is decided. In this respect a direction is issued to the learned family Court concerned for deciding the suit of Mst. Naseem Akhtar expeditiously by taking proceedings on day to day basis before proceeding on summer vacations. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the mother of Mst. Naseem Akhtar by adopting a deceitful method is also residing alongwith her daughter in the Dar-ul-Aman. If it is so, the petitioner has the remedy before the Court upon whose order the mother of the detenue had joined her in Dar-ul-Aman. Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 4 5. With these observations, this petition is disposed of." Ali Muhammad petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition seeking release of his daughter namely Mst. Naseem Akhtar from the relevant Dar-ul-Aman whereat she presently stands lodged for an indefinite period as a result of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 3. It is evident from the facts of the present case that Mst. Naseem Akhtar is a grown up young lady and she is not involved in any criminal case as an accused person. Her consistent stand before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and before this Court has been that she was not in any kind of confinement or under any restraint while living with her father. Although she has two rival suitors yet she has expressed a clear desire before this Court that she wishes to go and live with her father namely Ali Muhammad petitioner. We have found it to be rather disturbing that despite her eagerness to continue living with her father she had been deprived of her liberty and ordered by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore to be lodged at a Dar-ul-Aman and that too for an indefinite period. It is quite ironical and shocking that habeas corpus proceedings before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which were meant to secure release of a person from an illegal or improper custody or confinement, had been utilized in the present case for depriving a free person of her liberty and the net result achieved was that a grown up young lady who was not found to be in any kind of confinement or under any restraint had been locked up and incarcerated within the confines of a Dar-ul-Aman for an indefinite period! Such an approach adopted and the result achieved by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore surely ran contrary to the very essence and purpose of a writ or petition for habeas corpus which is securing freedom and not curtailing liberty. We are sure that the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore would have done better if he had sought guidance in this regard from various judgments handed down by this Court on the subject from time to time. Some of such Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 5 foundational judgments are referred to by us in the following paragraph. 4. In the case of Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Ghafoor (PLD 1972 SC 6) it had been held by this Court as follows: "Leave to appeal from the order of the High Court was granted on 10.04.1970 to examine the legality of the direction that Mst. Surraya Begum be given into the custody of the respondent against her free will. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the provisions of sections 491, 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Fundamental Right 1 that "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law"' the Court found no warrant in law for the direction given by the learned Judge about the custody of Mst. Surraya Begum. Section 491, Cr.P.C., under which the High Court exercised jurisdiction inter alia provides: "491.—(i) Any High Court may, whenever it thinks fit, direct— (a) that a person within the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law; (b) that a person illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within such limits be set at liberty;" (The other clauses of the section are not relevant to the present case). The High court has two-fold jurisdiction under this section: (i) to deal with a person within its appellate criminal jurisdiction according to law; and (ii) to set him at liberty if he is illegally or improperly detained. The question which falls for determination, however, is that if the Court finds that the person brought before it was not being illegally or improperly confined or detained what order can be passed regarding the custody of that person. If the person is a minor, the court may make over his custody to the guardian which will be dealing with him in accordance with law, but if the person is major, the only jurisdiction which the court can exercise is to set him at liberty whether illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody or not. The court may "set at liberty", but cannot restore status quo ante against the wishes of the person brought before it. Such a course will lead to curtailment of liberty for which there is no warrant under section 491 nor can such an order be sustained under section 561-A of the Code as it cannot be said that allowing a person freedom of movement is an abuse of the process of the Court." (underlining has been supplied for emphasis) Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 6 It had been held by this Court in the case of Muhammad Nazir v. The SHO Police Station, Shahpur and 3 others (1973 SCMR 351) as under: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge could not hand over the custody of the girl to A.S.I. Illaqa as no case has been registered against her. The case was registered against Muhammad Amir and Shah Wali. In such circumstance, no order could be passed against Mst. Fatima Bibi. It is strange that the learned Single Judge did not record the statement of the girl to find out whether she is major or minor and handed over the custody of the girl to the Illaqa Police for further investigation. This procedure is not warranted by any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law. The girl has appeared before us. Her statement has been recorded. She is major and is married to Muhammad Saeed. She wants to go with her husband. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and Mst. Fatima Bibi is set at liberty to go with her husband." (underlining has been supplied for emphasis) This Court had observed and held in the case of Mst. Sahi Bi v. Khalid Hussain and 6 others (1973 SCMR 577) in the following terms: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that under the Mohammadan Law, a sui juris woman cannot be forced to live with her husband against her wishes. Quranic injunction is against it. According to the Mohammadan Law, if there is disagreement between the husband and the wife, the wife is entitled to live separately from her husband. In the present case, there is disagreement between Mst. Irshad Begum and respondent No. 1 and in such circumstance, she is entitled to live with her mother. The observation of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that if Mst. Irshad Begum is set at liberty she will lead immoral life is irrelevant for the decision of the case under section 491, Cr.P.C. Under section 491, Cr.P.C., if a sui juris detenue is unwilling to go with her husband or guardian, the Court cannot compel her to go with them. She must be set at liberty and allowed to move freely. This position was made clear in the above mentioned case decided by this Court and the learned Single Judge should have set at liberty the detenu and allowed her to move freely according to her wishes". (underlining has been supplied for emphasis) 5. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 04.07.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1057-H of 2013 is set Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 7 aside and the detenue namely Mst. Naseem Akhtar is set at liberty. She may go and live with her father namely Ali Muhammad petitioner, as desired by her. 6. Before parting with this judgment we may observe that we have felt saddened by the fact that through the impugned order an Hon'ble Judge of a High Court had allowed his responsibility of protecting a citizen’s constitutional right to liberty to be overshadowed by his own subjective sense of morality. In this context we have found the following part of the impugned order to be utterly unacceptable and, if we may say so with respect, completely and unreservedly unpalatable: “2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Mst. Naseem Akhtar has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage and she cannot be detained in the Dar-ul-Aman for an indefinite period, rather her abode in the Dar-ul-Aman would amount to illegal detention. 3. This contention of the learned counsel is untenable for the reason that the Court cannot allow a person to live in immoral life and for this purpose she has been sent to Dar-ul-Aman to save her from the commission of an offence. She would stay in the Dar-ul-Aman till the time her suit for jactitation of marriage is decided.” (underlining has been supplied for emphasis) It is unfortunate that in his zeal and eagerness to prevent commission of an imagined or apprehended sin/crime the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had not only chosen to ignore the Divine command but had also decided to disregard the constitutional mandate. God Almighty has forbidden even leveling of an allegation of zina unless four eyewitnesses are produced in support of such an allegation and if such number of eyewitnesses are not produced then the person leveling the allegation is to be whipped and flogged. In the present case the learned Judge-in-Chamber had not even leveled an allegation but had only imagined a possibility of commission of zina in future and had then proceeded to punish the detenue by depriving her of her liberty and putting her in the confines of a Dar-ul-Aman for an indefinite period. In these indefensible circumstances, after having been punished only for an imagined or apprehended sin, the Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 8 detenue has appeared to us to be, in the words of Shakespeare’s King Lear, a woman "more sinned against than sinning". Apart from that the Constitution of Pakistan mandates that the judgments of this Court are binding on all other courts in the country but while passing the impugned order the learned Judge-in-Chamber had failed to follow the above mentioned, and many other, judgments rendered by this Court on the subject. It may be true that during the pendency of a petition filed in the nature of habeas corpus a court can pass a rule nisi regarding interim custody of the alleged detenue but it is unimaginable and unthinkable that after final disposition of such petition the alleged detenue, who was otherwise a free person, may be put to physical restraint or confinement for an indefinite period and that too not on the basis of any concrete fact or allegation but merely on the basis of an imagined possibility of commission of a sin or a crime. The learned Judge-in-Chamber ought to have known that it had been already been clarified by this Court in the case of Muhammad Rafique (supra) that “ ------- if the person is major, the only jurisdiction which the court can exercise is to set him at liberty whether illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody or not. The court may "set at liberty", but cannot restore status quo ante against the wishes of the person brought before it. Such a course will lead to curtailment of liberty for which there is no warrant under section 491 nor can such an order be sustained under section 561-A of the Code as it cannot be said that allowing a person freedom of movement is an abuse of the process of the Court." It appears that in the present case the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had transcended the legal requirements applicable or relevant to the lis before him and had decided to enter the realm of morality little appreciating that the field chosen by him did not lie in his domain and it lied in a domain which he ought to have consciously avoided to enter. The learned Judge-in-Chamber ought to have remembered that in the case of Mst. Sahi Bi (supra) this Court had already clinched this issue by declaring as under: "The observation of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that if Mst. Irshad Begum is set at liberty she will lead immoral life is irrelevant for the decision of the case under section 491, Cr.P.C." Criminal Petition No. 749-L of 2013 9 7. The Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Registrar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who may bring the same to the notice of the Hon’ble Judge of the said Court who had passed the order impugned through the present petition/appeal for his kind information and perusal. Judge Judge Lahore 19.07.2013 Approved for reporting. Arif

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 75-Q OF 2021 (On appeal against the judgment dated 01.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2020) Zahid son of Muhammad Ishaq … Petitioner VERSUS The State … Respondent For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC For the State: Mr. Baqir Shah, State counsel Date of Hearing: 21.10.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 43/2020 under Sections 377-B/354/511 PPC at Police Station Noshki for sexually abusing the daughter of the complainant and for using criminal force to the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.06.2021 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- i) Under Section 377-B PPC To suffer 5 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.500,000/- or in default whereof to further suffer six months SI. ii) Under Section 354 PPC To suffer 2 years RI. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner. 2. In appeal, the learned High Court vide impugned judgment, upheld the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal. 3. The facts of the case as given in the impugned judgment are as under:- “2. Precise facts of the case are that on 27th March, 2020 case FIR No. 43 of 2020 under Sections 377-B, 354, 511 PPC was registered with PS Noshki on the report of Mst. Najma wife of Ali Jan with the allegation that on 26.03.2020, at about 2:00 p.m. she sent her daughter Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021 2 namely Shahida aged about 7 years to the shop for bringing matchbox but she did not return whereupon she herself went to the shop of Shafi Muhammad and asked him about her daughter, who told that her daughter did not come here, whereafter she searched her here and there, in the meanwhile she heard hue and cry of her daughter from the Baitak of her neighbor Zahid, as such she knocked the door of the Baitak, whereupon accused Zahid opened the door and she entered inside the room, where her daughter was fully naked but Zahid did not allow her to go ahead and attacked upon her and torn her shirt and also threw away her minor child from her lap thereafter she put clothes upon her daughter and went to her house along with her daughter, where her daughter Shahida told her that accused Zahid forcibly took her in his Baitak, removed her clothes and attempted to give his penis in her mouth.” The convict has done so even earlier. 4. After completion of the investigation, a challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced five witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C the petitioner pleaded his innocence and also produced three witnesses in his defence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was registered after a delay of more than 22 hours, which shows that it was registered after deliberation and consultation to falsely frame the petitioner in the picture. Contends that the learned courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and undue weight was given to the prosecution witnesses despite glaring contradictions. Contends that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution and all the witnesses who appeared before the Court are interested one. Contends that the medical evidence does not support the ocular account as no sign of injury was seen on the body of the victim. Lastly contends that the impugned judgment being contrary to law and facts, the same may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted of the charge. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel defended the impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence and the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case against him, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the evidence available on record. Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021 3 In the instant case, the petitioner was proceeded against in pursuance of the aforesaid crime report wherein serious allegations are leveled against him. The most alarming allegation against the petitioner is that he tried to sexually harass a young girl aged about 7 years, which is a very disgusting act. The petitioner was investigated at length and was found involved as per accusation leveled in the crime report. During the course of trial, the learned Trial Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record convicted the petitioner as stated above, which conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned High Court. Today during the course of proceedings before us we have carefully evaluated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses i.e. Mst. Najma, complainant (PW-1) and Mst. Shahida Bibi (PW-2). The whole prosecution case qua ocular account hinges upon the testimonies of these two witnesses. Amongst these two witnesses Mst. Shahida Bibi happens to be the victim of the occurrence. While making her statement in Court, she has narrated the whole occurrence in a very mature and natural manner touching the contents of the crime report on all aspects without any disconnection. Although the victim was of tender age, however, her statement depicts maturity of the highest level, which is in consonance with the statement of Mst. Najma (PW-1), who happens to be her mother. The victim has directly charged the petitioner for sexually abusing her while detailing the acts committed by him on the day of occurrence. She has further alleged that the petitioner was in the habit of doing this even earlier to the present incident. Although she was cross-examined at length but her statement remained in line and was testified in the most natural style, which reflects that whatever she has stated before the Court, she has stated the truth. As far as the identity of the petitioner is concerned, there is not an iota of doubt about his identity because he being the neighborer of the victim was conversant with her. It is an apathy to mention that such like cases are at the verge of rise in the society, which has to be curbed with iron hands. Although in the instant case, the statement of the victim is fully corroborated by the statement of PW-1 but law is very clear about this that the statement of the victim in isolation itself is sufficient for conviction if the same reflects that it is independent, unbiased and straight forward to establish the accusation against the accused. In a recent judgment reported as Atif Zareef Vs. State (PLD Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021 4 2021 SC 550) this Court has categorically held that “rape is a crime that is usually committed in private, and there is hardly any witness to provide direct evidence of having seen the commission of crime by the accused person. The courts, therefore, do not insist upon producing direct evidence to corroborate the testimony of the victim if the same is found to be confidence inspiring in the overall particular facts and circumstances of a case, and considers such a testimony of the victim sufficient for conviction of the accused person. A rape victim stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness, for an injured witness gets the injury on the physical form while the rape victim suffers psychologically and emotionally.” The victim had specifically named the petitioner in his testimony before the Court and had fully identified him. There was no previous enmity between the parties, which could lead to false implication of the petitioner in the present case. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the learned High Court while relying on the judgment of this Court reported as Zahid Vs. State (2020 SCMR 590) has rightly held that in such like cases victims or their families are reluctant to come forward to promptly report the crime because of the trauma that has been suffered and they may have a perception of shame or dishonour in having the victim invasively examined by a doctor, therefore, the delay in reporting a sexual assault to the police is not very material. So far as the argument of learned counsel that according to medical evidence no sign of injury was found on the person of the victim is concerned, the prosecution case is that the petitioner had sexually abused the minor girl by firstly undressing her and then by touching his genital organ on the chest of the victim and he also tried to put his organ in the mouth of the victim. In such eventuality when the victim was only of seven years old and did not know as to what is happening with her and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was known to her previously, the victim may not have resisted in front of the petitioner, therefore, mere non- availability of any sign of injury is of no help to the petitioner. We have perused the statements of the three defence witnesses produced by the petitioner and could not find any credibility in the same. The DWs only made general statements and did not mention about the happening of the occurrence or anything related to the occurrence. They even could not remember the date of the incident. Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021 5 As far as the plea of the petitioner in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. that the husband of the complainant (PW-1) was out of country and in his absence different people would visit her house and when she was forbidden, a quarrel took place between the complainant and his mother and due to this reason he was implicated in this case is concerned, suffice it is to say that no one would defame her minor daughter only on some minor quarrel because the honor of female daughter is always more precious for a mother to take revenge on a trifle issue, therefore, the same appears to be a concocted story just to save the skin. 8. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 21st of October, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa Criminal Petition No.751 of 2017 Against the order dated 31.5.2017 passed by High Court of Sindh, Sukkur in Cr. Jail Appeal No.S-44 of 2009 Muhammad Juman Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State & others Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State : Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. PG. Sindh For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Adil Aziz Qazi, ASC a/w Respondents No.2-5 Date of Hearing : 23.11.2017 ORDER Mushir Alam, J- Muhammad Juman-Petitioner/Complainant has impugned the order dated 31.5.2017 passed by the learned Bench of the High Court of Sindh Bench, Sukkur whereby the accused nominated in Crime No.30 of 2005 for an offence under sections 302,34,PPC registered at Police Station Padidan, District Nausheroferoze, faced the trial, charge was established and conviction was handed down by the learned trial Court under section 302(b) PPC read with section 149 PPC and sentenced them to suffer R.I for life as Ta’zir and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only) each, as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Sattar with benefit of section 382-B Cr. PC. 2. The conviction was challenged by the convicts the learned Bench of the High Court vide impugned order dated 31.5.2017 while maintaining the conviction under section 302(b) PPC reduced the sentence to already undergone (i.e. respondent No.2 Gul Hassan served out twelve years Respondents No. 3 to 5 namely Bahadur, Abdul Haque and Ali Hassan, respectively having served out imprisonment for a period of eight years, two months and twenty eight days at the time of impugned judgment) Criminal Petition No.751 of 2017 2 and the appellant therein were ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant that the learned High Court, while passing the order impugned, did not consider that no case for mitigation and or reduction of the sentence “already undergone” was made out. Once the conviction is maintained under section 302(b) PPC the punishment provided is ‘death or imprisonment for life as Ta’zir’ and nothing short thereof. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that the learned Bench of the High Court treated or converted the conviction recorded under section 302(b) PPC to one under section 302(c) PPC wherein the Court could have reduced the sentence of any magnitude less than life, provided circumstances were shown to exist to mitigate the sentence. He therefore, prays for setting aside of the impugned order and seeks direction to remand back the Respondents No.2 to 5 to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by the leaned trial Court. 4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh has no cavil to the proposition recorded above, according to him without recording any mitigating circumstances sentence could not have been reduced and that too less than what is prescribed under section 302(b) PPC, without converting the conviction to one under section 302(c) PPC . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5, submits that on the merits it was a fit case for acquittal, and in alternate conversion of sentence under section 302(c) PPC, which in substance was treated so by the learned High Court. He however, concedes that the Court did not record any mitigating circumstance to convert the sentence. It was urged that since the respondents 2 to 5 are illiterate villager they were satisfied to be released from jail on whatever terms and conditions. It was for such reasons that the learned counsel then appearing before the Court had no qualm to treat the sentence already undergone instead of contesting the matter to earn acquittal and for converting the sentence under section 302(c) PPC, he submits that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the High Court with direction to hear the parties on merits and record the finding accordingly. Criminal Petition No.751 of 2017 3 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5, submits that since the respondents 2 to 5 have shown respect to the order of this Court and on notice have surrendered and appeared before this Court, they have already served out substantial sentence as already noted above. Jail Petition was filed on 24.4.2009, which remained pending for considerable period, till they were ordered to be released on 31.5.2017, therefore, impugned sentence be suspended till decision of Jail Petition by the High Court, in case conviction is maintained they would invariably be sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. In case they earn acquittal or even conversion of sentence under section 302(c) PPC, their lost liberty cannot be compensated. Learned Advocate General, Sindh on such score and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of case has no objection to the suspension of sentence till the hearing and decision by the learned Bench of the High Court. Learned ASC for the Petitioner, requests for direction to decide the Jail Appeal at an early date. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the record. Sentence is the punishment recognized and prescribed under Pakistan Penal Code, (section 54 PPC) to which the offender are liable and which could be inflicted on a person, who is proved guilty of an act or omission (offence), under the Pakistan Penal Code, at the trial, by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Once a person is proved guilty of an offence, the Court trying the offender looking at the gravity of offence, the manner in which offence is committed and other attending circumstances may inflict any quantum of the sentences as may be prescribed under the charging provision, it cannot be less nor more than what is prescribed. Sentence inflicted within the parameter prescribed by the law is ‘legal sentence’, which a Court of law is competent to inflict. It is the only the appellate and or revisional Court as the case may be, reverse the finding of conviction and or sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, modify and or alter the finding and or nature of conviction and quantum of sentence and any consequential or incidental order that may be just, proper and adequate (see sections 423, 439, 439-A Cr.P.C). Sentencing is one of the most important and intricate task, which a criminal Court has to perform while handing down a conviction after conclusion of a criminal trial. Inflicting conviction and imposing sentence is not a mechanical exercise but it is onerous responsibility to inflict, fair, reasonable and adequate sentence, commensurate with gravity and or severity of crime, looking at the motive, attending and or mitigating circumstances that provoked or instigated Criminal Petition No.751 of 2017 4 commission of crime and it involves conscious application of mind. No mathematical formula, standard or yard stick could be prescribed or set out to inflict conviction and sentence, such factors vary from case to case and while undertaking such exercise Court must keep in sight provisions contained in Chapter-III and IV of the PPC. Unfortunately, no sentencing guideline is laiddown in Pakistan, though Courts have set out certain parameters in many cases as to what is mitigating and or aggravating circumstances that may warrant alteration and or varying in conviction and or sentence within the parameters of provided under the charging or penal provision. For illustration one may see case of Ghulam Murtaza and another versus The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362), arising out of an appeal under the CNS Act 1997, and is more than often cited for the purposes of sentencing accused convicted under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act of 1997, in cited case elaborate exercise has been undertaken to prescribe sentencing an accused convicted of carrying or possessing different types and quantity of contraband, in paragraph 10 thereof it was held that “In the matter of sentence a Court may depart from the norms and standards prescribed above but in all such cases the Court concerned shall be obliged to record its reasons for such departure.” One may also see Ameer Zeb versus The State (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 380) and Nadeem Ashraf versus The State (2013 SCMR 1538). 8. Attending to the merits of case in hand in the light of above discussion, the respondents 2 to 5 all were charged for an for “Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Abdul Sattar under section 302 PPC read with section 149 PPC”. Punishment for Qatal-e-Amd is provided for under section 302 PPC as follows: “(a) punished with death as qisas; (b) punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta’zir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in section 304 is not available; or (c) punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, where according to the Injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable. Provided that nothing in clause (c) shall apply where the principle of fasad-fil-arz is attracted and in such cases only clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply.” Criminal Petition No.751 of 2017 5 In the instant case learned trial Court came to a conclusion that the “Prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons namely Gul Hassan, Bahadur, Abdul Haque, Ali Hassan beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. As regards the sentence, I think that since the accused are of young age and also close relatives to each other, therefore, there are mitigating circumstances to award lesser punishment. I, therefore, convict the accused persons namely Gul Hassan, Bahadur, Abdul Haque, Ali Hassan, for the offences punishable u/s 302(b) PPC Read with Section 149 PPC, and thereby sentence them to suffer S.I Imprisonment for Life as Ta’zir and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Sattar.”. 9. As noted above, learned trial Court came to a conclusion that accused persons have committed an offence chargeable under section 302(b) PPC, which section provide either of the two legal sentences, viz. “death” OR “imprisonment for life.” Learned trial Court considered ‘young age of the accused’ and being close relative to each other” as mitigating circumstances to award lesser of the two legal sentences provided under section 302(b) PPC viz. “imprisonment for life” and not “with death”, the maximum sentence as provided under the charging provision. 10. As noted above, through impugned order, appellate Court while maintaining the conviction under section 302(b) PPC modified the sentence to “already under gone”, without application of mind and in a mechanical fashion, as noted above, either of the two legal sentence for an offence under section 302(b) PPC is provided viz. “death” OR “imprisonment for life” and nothing in-between, shorter or greater. In case the Appellate Court, looking at the attending and mitigating circumstances was convinced that the sentence awarded is sever and or that mitigating and or other attending circumstances existed or that the case is covered by any of the legal exception or that case of the respondent fell under clause (c) to section 302 PPC, and also beyond the pale of proviso thereto, it was only than Court could have exercised the discretion to award any term of sentence or punishment “with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty five years…..” 11. In the instant case as noted above, learned Bench of the High Court, without application of mind and recording any reasons to alter a sentence, Criminal Petition No.751 of 2017 6 in a mechanical manner, reduced the sentence as already undergone, which is not a legal sentence within the contemplation of section 302(b) PPC. It is only when the appellate Court is convinced that the case fell within clause (c) of section 302 PPC than only it is proper for the appellate Court to modify and or vary the conviction from section 302(b) to 302(c) PPC and award sentence as has been done, provided also, after being satisfied that the case is not one of honour killing, an exception, per proviso thereto. 12. Under facts and circumstances of case, we set aside the impugned order. The Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-44 of 2009 shall be deemed to be pending and it is expected that the learned Bench as may be assigned will hear and decide the appeal preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Since it is an old matter preference may be given to decision of the appeal. In peculiar circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 to suspend the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Learned counsels for the complainant as well as the convicts and Additional Prosecutor General undertake that they shall appear before the Sindh High Court and make all endeavours to render assistance for the disposal of the case in accordance with law at an earliest. The respondents 2 to 5 present before us shall furnish bail bonds and sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court of Sindh, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the petition is converted into appeal, and allowed in terms noted above. JUDGE Islamabad 23rd November, 2017 Arshed JUDGE Approved for Reporting.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.762 of 2018 (Against the judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. A. No.249/2013) Muhammad Rasool …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC For the State: Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Ch. Ehtisham ul Haq Special Prosecutors, ANF M. Tariq J.D. Law, ANF Date of Hearing 01.03.2022. Order Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Intercepted by a contingent of Anti Narcotic Force Attock, after a hot pursuit, the petitioner was found on wheel a vehicle with a considerable cache, weighing 11.500 kilograms of cannabis, concealed in the secret cavities detected in the petrol tank; it comprised 10 packets wherefrom samples of 10 grams each, forensically confirmed the narcotic character of the contraband. Upon indictment, the petitioner claimed trial that resulted into his conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction to pay fine, vide judgment dated 3.6.2013, upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.06.2018, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed on the grounds that forensic analysis did not qualify the “protocols” required for chemical examination as set-forth by the law declared in Imam Bukhsh Case. It is next argued that the contents of the parcels, statedly prepared at the time of alleged recovery, upon de-sealing in the Court, during the cross-examination, were incompatible with the details mentioned in the recovery memo prepared at the time of their seizure. Prosecution has not been able to Criminal Petition No.762 of 2018 2 prove its case involving huge penalty of imprisonment for life on the strength of proof beyond doubt, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment; he argued that prosecution successfully drove home the charge by establishing each link of its case through an uninterrupted chain of events ranging from seizure to chemical analysis, conclusively confirming the contraband as being cannabis; he has next argued that given the volume of cache, surreptitiously concealed in a vehicle of value, is an event that cannot be viewed with suspicion. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. We have examined the forensic report that contains a detailed description of analysis undertaken by the chemical examiner by mentioned each test, carried out to confirm the narcotic character of the samples. Relevant witnesses appeared to establish safe custody of the contraband as well as transmission of samples to the laboratory; the argument does not hold water. Adverting to the plea, emphatically addressed about an apparent discrepancy suggested in the weight and texture of the contraband, made into sealed parcels at the time of their seizure, statedly mentioned in the recovery memo, noticed upon their de-sealing during the course of cross-examination on the request of defence counsel. The learned trial Judge has satisfactorily met the argument by citing sound reasons. It is off late noted, particularly, more often than not, in cases of narcotics that an application, rather late in the day, is moved for the de-sealing of parcels to fish out a discrepancy, notwithstanding, a plea of loud denial and false implication from the day one. It is rather intriguing to comprehend as to how an accused pleading innocence, all of a sudden in the midst of the trial, prophetically learns about a change, having occurred in weight or texture of the contraband kept in safe custody; it does not require a genius to smell the rat. In the first place there is no occasion for the trial Judge, in the absence of any plausible reason, to obligingly accede to such a request for an exercise, manifestly calculated to subvert the prosecution case through methods sinister and stained. It is otherwise not possible without connivance of Moharrir Malkhana and the Naib Court to lay the ground for such a venture, therefore, it is imperative for the prosecution to keep a watchful and vigilant eye upon its unscrupulous functionaries so as to ensure that stream of justice runs pure and clean. Any attempt or act to destroy or contaminate evidence lawfully collected is a cognizable Criminal Petition No.762 of 2018 3 offence in itself, commission whereof, must be visited with zero tolerance. Fair trial is not a one-way affair; it also requires an accused and his agents, pleading innocence, to conduct themselves in a manner above board, in accordance with law; their pursuit is only justified insofar as it is in accord with the means sanctioned by law. Upon a careful analysis of the evidence, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a view different than concurrently taken by the Courts below. Petition fails. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 1st March, 2022 Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos.763-L and 746-L of 2016 (Against the judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Appeal Nos.2608 and 2755 of 2010 with M.R. No.611/2010) Muhammad Ameer alias Kali & Riaz Ahmed (in Crl. P. 763-L/2016) Mst. Sabiran Bibi (in Crl. P. 746-L/2016) …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another (in Crl. P. 763-L/2016) The State & 2 others (in Crl. P. 746-L/2016) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, ASC (in Cr. P.763-L/2016) Mr. Javed Imran Ranjha, ASC (in Cr. P.746-L/2016) For the State: N.R. Date of hearing: 14.10.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Zulfiqar, 40/41, was shot dead at 4:30 p.m. on 9.7.2006 within the remit of Police Station Arifwala District Pakpattan; according to the crime report, lodged by his father Ahmad Ali (PW-3), he was jointly targeted by the petitioners, both armed with .12 caliber shot guns; a stray pellet landing on the left deltoid of Allah Yar (PW-4). Besides the petitioners, Khizar Hayat and Muhammad Asif, since acquitted, were also arrayed to have ambushed the deceased for a motive that revolved around abduction of some females. Ocular account supported by medical evidence as well as recoveries weighed with the learned trial Judge to return the petitioners a guilty verdict vide judgment dated 25.10.2010; convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, they Criminal Petition Nos.763-L and 746-L of 2016 2 were sentenced to death with additional imprisonment to Muhammad Ameer alias Kali on a coordinate charge; High Court while disbelieving the motive altered the death penalty to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 12.04.2016, vires whereof, are being assailed both by the convicts as well as the complainant; latter to seek revival of death penalty as well as reversal of acquittal. With a common thread, these are being decided through this single judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the convicts contends that there is a diametrical conflict between ocular account and findings recorded by the medical officer in the autopsy report and, thus, there was no occasion for the courts below to record and maintain conviction on foundations, inherently flawed; while elaborating his plea, he has drawn our attention to the firearm entry wound on the back of skull, with projectiles exiting from the frontal part thereof; according to the crime report, fire shot by Muhammad Ameer caught the deceased on the front of his face after he had already received a fire shot on his chest, at the hands of Riaz Ahmed; the dichotomy, being suggestive of a wider net, casts away the entire case, concluded the learned counsel. Contrarily, according to the learned counsel for the complainant, trajectory of high velocity projectiles and the portion of human body, seldom static in line thereof, cannot be captured/observed with an unfailing exactitude even by the best of faculties and, thus, upon analysis of overall evidence, the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court, in the totality of circumstances, supported by various planks of the prosecution case, had rightly drawn the conclusion of guilt, however, he insisted for restoration of death penalty, a wage, viewed as conscionable in circumstances; he has also prayed for a guilty verdict qua the acquitted co-accused for being in the community of intention. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Cited motive, though disbelieved by the High Court, nonetheless, the state of affairs between the families of the complainant and the petitioners, somewhat related, as reflected in the cross examination, unmistakably points towards a troubled relationship. Illicit liaison and abduction of two females are succinct part of the record; this leaves hardly any space to entertain hypothesis of substitution. Exoneration during the investigation, ultimately resulting into acquittal on account of their inconsequential participation, departure of Khizar Hayat and Muhammad Asif from the scene does not tremor the mainstay of the case. Riaz Ahmed petitioner Criminal Petition Nos.763-L and 746-L of 2016 3 opened the assault with first fire shot landing on the chest; it created five apertures all around the frontal part of deceased’s body extending to the left iliac fossa; these injuries cumulatively caused massive damage; fall was an inevitable consequence that appears to have exposed the back of deceased’s head for a second shot; location of the assailants in the site plan, though left unchallenged does not allow, suggested trajectory of second shot. Two .12 caliber casings secured from the spot, found wedded with shot gun (P-1), recovered on the disclosure of Riaz Ahmed, spells out a one-man show, therefore, to maintain the conviction of Muhammad Ameer alias Kali is fraught with risk of error but at the same time it does not dismantle prosecution’s case qua Riaz Ahmed. Consequently, out of abundant caution and with a view to ensure safe administration of criminal justice, Criminal Petition No.763-L of 2016 to the extent of Muhammad Ameer alias Kali is converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment to his extent is set aside and he shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained by law, however, it fails vis-à-vis Riaz Ahmed; his conviction and sentence is maintained. Criminal Petition No.746-L of 2016 also fails. Leave is declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 14th October, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.77-P OF 2020 (Against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 22.06.2020 passed in Cr. M.B.A No.1316-P/2020) Imtiaz … Petitioner(s) Versus Azam Khan and others … Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): : Mr. Muhammad Jamal Afridi, ASC For the Respondent(s): : Mr. Hussain Ali ASC Respondents in person For the State: : Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl: AG KPK Mr. Hidayat Khan, SI Police Station Mathra District Peshawar Date of Hearing : 08.10.2020 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:-Petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the order impugned dated 22.06.2020 passed in Cr.M.B.A No.1316-P/2020. 2. The respondents were booked in case bearing FIR No.903/17 dated 06.11.2017 offence u/s 302/324/34 PPC registered with Police Station Mathra, District Peshawar at the instance of Imtiaz s/o Qadir Khan, complainant. As per allegation against the respondents is that they in furtherance of their common intention while armed with knife attacked with their respective weapon causing injuries on the person of Imtiaz Criminal Petition No.77-P/2020 Imtiaz vs, Azam Khan and others 2 complainant, Qadir Khan his father and Rafi Ullah real uncle. Qadir Khan father of the complainant succumbed to injuries on his way to hospital. The respondents became fugitive from law hence, they were arrested by the police after the lapse of 02 years and 03 months. The respondents filed their post arrest bail before the learned trial court which was dismissed by the learned ASJ-XI, Peshawar vide order dated 19.02.2020. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of learned ASJ-XI, Peshawar filed a Cr.M(BA) bearing No.396-P/2020 before learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and the same was entrusted to learned single bench. The learned single bench after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances disposed of the petition with the direction to the learned trial court not to be prejudice by the earlier order of dismissal passed on 19.02.2020 however the matter was sent back on the ground that proper sections of law regarding causing hurt to both injured were not added by the Investigating Officer. In the second round of litigation, the respondents moved another application for post arrest bail which was entrusted to ASJ-III, Peshawar. The learned ASJ-III, Peshawar vide order dated 06.05.2020 dismissed the petition for post arrest bail on the ground that the sections 302/324/337-D PPC do fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. The respondents challenged the order of learned ASJ-III, Peshawar before Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Cr.M.B.A No.1316-P/2020 which was entrusted to learned single bench. It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while filing the second petition before Peshawar High Court, Peshawar did not disclose that earlier petition was filed before this Court and the same was entrusted to another learned single bench. The note mentioned in the petition is reproduced as under: - Criminal Petition No.77-P/2020 Imtiaz vs, Azam Khan and others 3 “As per instruction of my client certified that no such bail application has been filed by the petitioner, before this Hon'ble Court.” The learned single bench vide order dated 22.06.2020 granted post arrest bail to the respondents on the basis that the intention of respondents to kill the injured and applicability of section 324 PPC as well as sharing of common intention with principal accused are yet to be determined and that is to be done exclusively by the learned trial court hence, instant petition for cancellation of concession of bail extended to respondents. 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the bail granting order passed by the learned trial court dated 22.06.2020 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been further argued that the learned counsel while moving the bail petition has not properly informed the office regarding the earlier disposal of the petition of the respondents and has actually concealed the real facts just to defeat earlier filing of the petition which was entrusted to another learned single bench. Contends that the same is clear violation of principle laid down in PLD 1986 SC 173 (The State through AG NWFP vs, Zubair and 04 others). Further contends that on merits, the respondents were ascribed injury which do fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC and the finding given by the learned single bench are artificial in nature. Contends that the gross injustice has been occasioned due to order passed by the learned single bench hence, the order is not sustainable in the eye of law in any manner. The learned counsel has relied upon case law reported in PLD 2015 SC 66 (Ghulam Qammber Shah vs, Mukhtiar Hussain and others) and 2020 SCMR 937 (Bilal Khan vs, The State through PG Punjab). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that in the earlier application, the matter was Criminal Petition No.77-P/2020 Imtiaz vs, Azam Khan and others 4 remanded back for the insertion of certain offences which were not incorporated by the Investigating Officer. Contends that the order passed by the learned single bench is sustainable and the reasoning assigned is justifiable under the law. Contends that the principle for grant of bail and cancellation are entirely on different footing and as such, the courts are always reluctant to accept the petition for cancellation of bail. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no denial to this fact that respondents were admitted to bail after arrest by a single bench in second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the post arrest bail of the respondents was dismissed by learned ASJ-XI, Peshawar whereas the second bail application which was challenged before learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and the learned single bench sent back the matter to the learned trial court not due to any reasons except that the appropriate section as per law were not incorporated, which might have ensued gross injustice to the complainant and as such, the matter was sent back for addition of the relevant provision of law in the police record. That after the insertion of the relevant provision of law in the second round of litigation, the matter was assigned to learned ASJ-III, Peshawar. It is strange enough that it has now established that the bail application if earlier decided by a court, the same cannot be entrusted to any other court except on the ground that the other court was not available. This was not taken care of even at the bail stage before the court of learned ASJ whereas in the second round of litigation, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents intentionally avoided to disclose the filing of earlier petition before learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and the adjudication of the same by a different bench and it was assigned to Criminal Petition No.77-P/2020 Imtiaz vs, Azam Khan and others 5 another court which was clear violation of PLD 1986 SC 173 (The State through AG NWFP vs, Zubair and 04 others). Apart from this, the learned single bench has not taken into consideration the allegation against the respondents and the injuries ascribed to them. It is an admitted fact that one of the injured PW had undergone surgical intervention and as such, the provision of section 337-D PPC was added. The finding given by the learned single bench qua the applicability of section 324 PPC and section 34 PPC qua the common intention of the accused person is based upon artificial reasoning which to us was not required at this stage otherwise it is established principle of law that while adjudicating a matter regarding the bail only tentative assessment has to be made which has been established while enunciating the same by this Court from time to time in various judgments including PLD 2015 SC 66 (Ghulam Qammber Shah Vs, Mukhtiar Hussain and others) and 2020 SCMR 937(Bilal Khan vs, The State through PG Punjab) otherwise the respondents remained absconder for more than 02 years and 03 months which aspect has altogether ignored by the learned single bench. 7. These are the reasons of our short order of even date which reads as under: - “For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The bail granted to the respondents through the impugned judgment of the Peshawar High Court, is recalled and the respondents are directed to be taken into custody forthwith. Judge Judge Islamabad, 08.10.2020 Approved for reporting Syed Rashid Maqsood/*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 789 OF 2023 (On appeal against the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Crl. MBA No. 1831-P/2023) Muhammad Aslam … Petitioner Versus The State …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Tariq, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Special Prosecutor ANF Ch. Ehtisham ul Haq, Special Prosecutor ANF Mr. Hasan Feroz, Inspector Date of Hearing: 23.08.2023 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 46/2023 dated 19.03.2023 under Sections 9(1) 3e, 6e, 9(2) 5-15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he was caught red-handed by the Police and charas weighing 104.400 kilograms, heroin weighing 05 kilograms and methamphetamine (ice) weighing 0.900 kilogram was recovered from the car in the front seat of which he was sitting and traveling. Criminal Petition No. 789/2023 -: 2 :- 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that no contraband whatsoever was recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner and he was not in conscious knowledge regarding the presence of the narcotics in the car. Lastly contends that the learned High Court has not properly evaluated the material available on the record, therefore, by declining bail to the petitioner, a grave miscarriage of justice has been done. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer contended that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the crime report and from his possession a huge quantity of narcotics has been recovered, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the evidence available on the record. 6. As per the contents of the crime report, on receiving a spy information that a huge quantity of narcotics would be smuggled from Peshawar to Punjab via motorway, the Police party set a blockade and intercepted a car, which was being driven by co-accused of the petitioner while the petitioner was sitting in front seat of the car. From the secret cavities of the car, charas weighing 104.400 kilograms, heroin weighing 05 kilograms and methamphetamine (ice) weighing 0.900 kilogram was recovered. Samples were taken and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory in accordance with the prescribed criteria and the report of the FSL is positive. Nothing could be brought on record by the petitioner to suggest that the Police had any malice to falsely involve him in the present case. During the course of arguments, learned counsel contended that petitioner was merely sitting on the front seat of the car and the narcotics was not in his conscious knowledge. We have noted that the learned High Court has taken note of this argument and has rightly held that the “petitioner and the driver of the vehicle both belong to the disciplined force that is Pak Army and at the relevant time both were posted at the same Criminal Petition No. 789/2023 -: 3 :- place, therefore, the impugned transaction being a joint venture cannot be overruled at the moment.” The offence is heinous in nature as it contributes to the menace of drugs having grave repercussions on the society. Prima facie the material available on the record connects the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is well reasoned, proceeds on correct principles of law on the subject and does not call for interference by this Court. 7. For what has been discussed above, we are not convinced that any case for grant of bail is made out. This petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 23rd of August, 2023 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.79-K of 2019 (Against order dated 21.3.2019 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Cr. Accountability Appeal No.14/2013) Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui through his legal heirs …Petitioner(s) Versus The State through Chairman NAB …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi, ASC Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, AOR For the State Mr. Sattar Awan, Special Prosecutor Date of hearing: 2.1.2020. JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui, since demised, was tried by an Accountability Court at Karachi; he was arrayed in the reference alongside Javed Iqbal Farooqui, Iftikhar A. Shaikh and Shaikh Mansoor Ahmed, away from law till date, proceeded accordingly; held guilty under Section 9(a)(viii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with a direction to pay Rs.5.187 million as fine, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue; upon his death, a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, disposed of his appeal as having been abated, while keeping amount of fine intact to be realized from his estate vide impugned order dated 21.3.2019, vires whereof are being disputed herein. 2. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased convict contends that notwithstanding death of the convict, his appeal, admitted to regular hearing during his life time, merited full dress Criminal Petition No.214 of 2018 2 regular adjudication as not only his name required vindication but also for the additional reason that his estate, devolving upon the legal heirs, was burdened with impugned conviction. While referring to the provisions of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, law declared by this Court in the cases of Dr. Ghulam Hussain (represented by 8 heirs) vs. The State (1971 SCMR 35) and Muhammad Shamoon (deceased) through legal representatives vs. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1144) has been referred to argue that there was no occasion for the learned High Court to short circuit the pending proceedings with fiscal consequences of the conviction still impinging upon the estate. The learned Law Officer has contested the motion. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Corporal consequences of a conviction wither away with the death of the convict, therefore appeal filed by the convict would automatically abate, as the death severs all temporal links with his corpus. However, financial liability, consequent upon conviction and shifted upon the estate, would certainly require the appellate court to decide the appeal on its own merit as in the event of its failure, the liability is to be exacted from the assets devolving upon the legal heirs. A plain reading of Section 431 of the Code ibid confirms the above contemplation of law. Criminal petition is converted into appeal; allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal filed by the deceased, being sustained by his legal heirs, shall be deemed as pending before the High Court for adjudication on merits. Judge Judge Judge Karachi, the 2nd January, 2020 Not approved for reporting Ghulam Raza/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 796-L OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22073-B/2021) Waqas ur Rehman alias Moon … Petitioner VERSUS The State etc … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mian Muhammad Aslam, ASC a/w petitioner For Respondent (2): In person For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. Mr. Bashir Ahmed, ASI Date of Hearing: 13.10.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 1578/2020 dated 05.12.2020 under Section 420/468/471 PPC at Police Station Manawan, District Lahore, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. As per the contents of the crime report, the complainant wanted to purchase a house and for this purpose she along with her husband went to the office of the property dealer where the petitioner along with co-accused were present. They showed her a house, received a sum of Rs.500,000/- as advance along with Rs.50,000/- as commission and handed over to her Fard Malkiyat of the house. However, later on it transpired that the said house was owned by someone else and the Fard Malkiyat was found to be a bogus document. Criminal Petition No. 796-L/2021 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances due to connivance of the complainant with local police. Contends that the very office where the complainant went does not belong to the petitioner and he was merely sitting in the office. Contends that neither the petitioner participated in the transaction nor received any consideration or stood witness, therefore, he cannot be saddled with the liability. 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer contended that the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the crime report. He contends that the petitioner is habitual cheater/offender and three other criminal cases of similar nature have been registered against him. Contends that even he did not appear before the High Court on the ground that he has been tested positive for COVID-19 but the certificate placed on record by him was subsequently found bogus. Lastly contends that the petitioner was also found guilty during the police investigation and he does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record. The petitioner is involved in a case where a woman folk has been deprived of valuable money under the disguise of handing over a house against a consideration of Rs.500,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- as commission. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no nexus with the crime alleged does not appeal to reason as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is one of the signatory of the document which reflects that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused has managed to defraud a household lady. The accusation against the petitioner was otherwise found correct during the course of investigation and as such a definite finding of guilt has been given by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner. We are conversant with the fact that the ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts but it has persuasive value. The conduct of the petitioner is very material in this case. During the pendency of the second bail petition of the petitioner before the High Court, a certificate regarding his sickness was produced wherein it was specifically mentioned that he is Criminal Petition No. 796-L/2021 3 suffering from COVID-19. However, the said certificate on inquiry was found to be bogus one. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not appear before the High Court although he was admitted to ad interim bail twice in two different petitions by the High Court that too in extraordinary circumstances. The grant of pre-arrest bail undeniably is extraordinary relief, which has to be exercised sparingly with an intent to save the innocent persons from trump-up charges whereas in the instant case we are informed that the petitioner is otherwise involved in three other cases of similar nature, which further lends support to the fact that the petitioner is prone to criminal activities coupled with the fact that he is so dare devil that he did not even hesitate to cheat the highest judicial forum of a province and the same is reflected from paragraph (3) of the order impugned before us. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, we are persuaded to decline the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. As a consequence, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 13th of October, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 801 OF 2021 (On appeal against the judgment dated 11.06.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Revision No. 49-P/2021) Shah Jehan and another … Petitioners VERSUS Raheem Shah and others … Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Ghulam Mohy-ud-din Malik, ASC For the State: Mr. Shumyl Aziz, Addl. A.G. KPK Date of Hearing: 20.10.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have called in question the judgment dated 11.06.2021 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Criminal Revision No.49-P/2021 with the prayer to set aside the same in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. The facts of the case are that a case bearing FIR No.1706 dated 30.11.2019 under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC was registered at Police Station Faqirabad, District Peshawar at the instance of Zewar Khan son of Gul Roz Khan. After the registration of the aforesaid crime report, the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and the report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon Raheem Shah, father of the deceased and Sadiq Khan, who was one of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and re- examination of Zewar Khan (PW-6) and Uzair Khan (PW-8) as they were turned hostile during trial. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2021 allowed the application to the extent of summoning of Raheem Shah, father of the deceased and Sadiq Khan, who Criminal Petition No. 801/2021 2 happens to be one of the eye-witnesses of the crime report, whereas the application to the extent of re-summoning and re-examining of Zewar Khan (PW-6) and Uzair Khan (PW-8) was dismissed as their examination-in-chief and cross-examination has already been completed, thus, there is no occasion for re-calling them for re- examination. The order of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court in Criminal Revision No.49-P/2021 which was allowed vide judgment dated 11.06.2021. Hence this petition. 3. The main crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court as well as the High Court while adjudicating the matter with respect to the application which was filed under Section 540 Cr.P.C. have gone beyond the scope of the law. Contends that it is an established principle of law that in criminal matter, new witnesses cannot be brought on the record unless and until they are necessary for the just decision of the case and those can be brought if they join investigation from the initiation of the proceedings. Contends that Raheem Shah, father of the deceased was neither cited as witness nor mentioned in calendar of witnesses in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The application for summoning of Raheem Shah, father of the deceased along with Sadiq Khan was moved for the first time on 26.01.2021 after the lapse of about 14 months and that too when the statement of the ocular account was recorded and cross- examination was completed by the learned defence counsel. Contends that the statement of Sadiq Khan was not recorded and that the observations given by the High Court are unwarranted and as such it would squarely prejudice the case of the petitioners, therefore, the observation passed by the learned High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is uncalled for. 4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer supported the order of the Trial Court as well as the revisional judgment passed by the High Court. It is mainly contended that the witnesses of ocular account, namely, Zewar Khan (PW-6) and Uzair Khan (PW- 8) have given their statements according to their conscious and the fate of the same is yet to be decided, therefore, the order of the Trial Court permitting to introduce new witnesses (father of the deceased, who is not mentioned in the crime report and Sadiq Khan, already Criminal Petition No. 801/2021 3 mentioned in the crime report) is fully justified whereas the judgment of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction is unexceptionable. Lastly, it is argued by the learned Law Officer that the judgment impugned before us would not prejudice the case of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, therefore, the same is passed squarely in accordance with law. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no second cavil to this proposition that the aforesaid crime report was registered at the instance of one Zewar Khan who narrated the definite story relating to the prosecution case which is spelt out from the record from the bare reading of the same. Undeniably, Sadiq Khan is one of the eye-witnesses, whereas Raheem Shah, father of the deceased stands nowhere in the crime report as a witness. The filing of the application after the lapse of about 14 months wherein a new witness has been introduced to substantiate the accusations leveled in the crime report does not make sense as considerable time has already elapsed and it will certainly imprint that the said application has been filed after due deliberation and consultation. No doubt the introduction of new witness cannot be denied stricto sensu but certainly the scheme of law would be bypassed if at this stage the statement of Raheem Shah, father of the deceased is permitted to be recorded during the proceedings before the Trial Court although it was well within the knowledge of the said Raheem Shah about the murder of his son and he never opted to appear as a witness and in this regard the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is nowhere mentioned that Raheem Shah ever appeared before the Investigation Officer to substantiate the accusation leveled against the accused persons. As far as the case of Sadiq Khan is concerned, he is one of the eye-witnesses of the crime report and as such his statement, if earlier not given up by the prosecution and the prosecution’s case is still not closed, the same can be re-agitated and adduced to strengthen the prosecution version on the basis of contents of the crime report, therefore, he can be produced and recorded by the Trial Court as per dictates of law, whereas so far as re-summoning and re-examination of two Criminal Petition No. 801/2021 4 prosecution witnesses, who have already been recorded by the Trial Court, is concerned, as their cross-examination has already been conducted by the defence counsel and any application at a belated stage just on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have made statements contrary to the earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is no ground at all to issue direction for re-summoning and re-examining the said witnesses for further cross-examination which is against the essence of law. No one can be permitted to fill in the lacunas at the belated stage according to his own whims. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court to the extent of declining re-summoning and re-examination of Zewar Khan (PW-6) and Uzair Khan (PW-8) is upheld. Further, the finding of Trial Court to summon father of deceased is also set aside, however, Sadiq Khan, PW can be summoned to substantiate the prosecution version, if so desired, whereas the finding of the High Court is set aside. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in the light of this judgment. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 20th of October, 2021 Approved For Reporting Waqas Naseer/*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2013 & Jail Petition No.474/2017 (Against judgment dated 30.05.2013 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 478-P/2012 and Murder Reference No. 19-P/2012) Izzat Ullah (in Cr.P. No.83-P/2013) Mst. Robina (in J.P. No.474/2017) …Petitioner(s) Versus The State …Respondent For the petitioner: Mr. Altaf Samad, ASC (in Cr. Petition No.83-P/2013) Mrs. Farhana Naz Marwat, ASC (in Jail Petition No.474-P/2017) For the State: Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl. A.G., KPK Date of hearing: 27.09.2019. JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Jail Petition No.474 of 2017 by Mst. Robina and Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.83-P/2013 by her co-convict Izzat Ullah, bound by a common thread, are being decided through this single judgment; they were intercepted on 27.3.2010 at 10:00 a.m. within the precincts of Police Station Muhammad Riaz Shaheed District Kohat at a check- post while travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No.AJD-911 Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2013 & Jail Petition No.474/2017 2 Sindh. Izzat Ullah petitioner was on the wheel, Mst. Robina being next to him; on a suspect response, when questioned, the vehicle was extensively searched and the police contingent succeeded to discover a secret cavity in the fuel tank wherefrom 20 packs each with 1050 grams heroin were recovered. Soon after the arrest, Mst. Robina was produced before Mr. Tilla Muhammad, Judicial Magistrate (PW-1) who recorded her confessional statement (Ex.PW-1/2). Izzat Ullah petitioner opted to make his breast clean on the following day through statement (Ex.PW-1/5). As the investigation progressed, co-accused Majnoon son of Rustam was also taken on board for having dispatched the consignment. One Fida, an alleged privy to the transaction, is still away from the law. Upon indictment, the accused claimed trial whereupon prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses, besides the forensic report to drive home the charge; they confronted prosecution evidence with unanimous denials with a reticence as to why they were roped in the case. The learned trial Judge extended benefit of the doubt to Majnoon co-accused, however, vide judgment dated 9.10.2012 proceeded to convict Izzat Ullah and Robina Bibi under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; the former was sentenced to death while latter to imprisonment for life; their convictions were maintained by the High Court, however, death penalty awarded to Izzat Ullah was altered into imprisonment for life and it is so done on the request of his counsel on account of his being merely a carrier without deriving much benefit from the crime. 2. Validity of confessional statements as well as prosecution’s failure to establish safe custody and transmission are the main planks stressed on behalf of the convicts besides non- availability of public witnesses to attest the recovery. 3. Confessional statements before Tilla Muhammad, Judicial Magistrate (PW-1), though retracted subsequently present formidable piece of evidence, inexorably pointed upon the convicts’ culpability. Mst. Robina made disclosure within a small span of time soon after her arrest, during her first appearance before the Magistrate; Izzat Ullah followed the suit; both of them after having Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2013 & Jail Petition No.474/2017 3 been administered warnings and cautions, though disapprovingly on a printed format, nonetheless, made statements otherwise found by us as voluntary, natural and truthful with relevant details compatible with the salient features of the case; brief interregnum rules out hypothesis of manipulation. Other pieces of evidence have been found by us as independently sufficient to drive home the charge; forensic report confirms the lethal nature of the substance, recovered in a quantity that cannot be possibly foisted in routine; seizure of the vehicle clinches the case. Argument of safe custody does not hold much water as Abdul Faraz 28/C (PW-10) took the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with Rahdari Ex.PW8/3 was not cross-examined despite opportunity. Forensic Report (Ex.PZ) corroborates the position taken by the said PW. Absence of public witnesses is beside the mark; public recusal is an unfortunate norm. Prosecution witnesses are in a comfortable unison; being functionaries of the Republic, they are second to none in status and their evidence can be relied upon unreservedly, if found trust worthy, as in the case in hand. Both the courts below have undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the prosecution case and concurred in their conclusions regarding petitioners’ guilt and we have not been able to take a different view than concurrently taken by them. Petitions fail. Dismissed. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad 27th September, 2019 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.83-P of 2015 (Against the judgment dated 06.03.2015 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.188-M/2012) State through AG General KP, Peshawar …Petitioner(s) Versus Sabz Ali Khan …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Abida Safdar, Assistant Advocate General, KPK For the Respondent(s): N.R. Date of hearing: 26.07.2021 ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for homicide for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Sher Muhammad, within the precincts of Police Station Changlay, District Bonair, the respondent was convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 10.10.2012; he was sentenced to death with a direction to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased; on the coordinate charge of murderous assault on Mushtaq PW, he was sentenced to 7-years RI with concomitant monetary compensation; the High Court acquitted him from the charges vide impugned judgment dated 06.03.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed on the grounds that there was no occasion for the High Court to take the impugned view inasmuch as the prosecution had successfully driven home charge beyond a shadow of doubt on the strength of ocular account furnished by the witnesses that included an injured with a massive injury. It is next argued that investigative conclusions drawn up pursuant to a prompt recourse to law, inexorably pointed towards respondent’s culpability, singularly arrayed in the crime report. According to the learned counsel, reference by the High Court to peripheral issues and stated durations of time are Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2015 2 too trivial to override the preponderance of evidence that unambiguously excluded every hypothesis other than respondent’s guilt; similarly, according to her, stated lapses on part of the Investigating Officer, being inconsequential, certainly does not cast away prosecution’s case, otherwise firmly structured on evidence furnished by the independent witnesses and, thus, the impugned view being artificial warrants interference by the Court in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. Contentions merit consideration; leave is granted to reappraise entire evidence with a view to secure the ends of justice. Send for the respondent through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/-, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Peshawar. Station House Officer shall execute the warrants within a fortnight. Judge Judge Peshawar, the 26th July, 2021 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. Mr. Justice M. Javed Buttar. Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani. CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.848-L, 920-L & 921-L OF 2002 AND JAIL PETITION NO.2 OF 2003 a/w CRL. MISC. No.62/2005 IN CRL. PETITION NO.920-L/2002 (On appeal against the judgment dated 2-10-2002 Passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Appeal No.622, 637, 638/97 and M.R. No.247-T of 1997) Ghulam Abbas … … Petitioner (in Crl.P.848-L/02) Munir Ahmed … … Petitioner (in Crl.P.920-L/02) Shaukat Ali … … Petitioner (in Crl.P.921-L/02) Irfan Javed and others … … Petitioners (in JP.2/2003) Versus The State … … Respondent (in all cases) For the petitioner : Syed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi, ASC (in Crl.P.848-L/02) Petitioner(s) Nemo. (in Crl.P.920-L, 921-L/02 : and JP.2/2003) For the State : Mrs. Afshan Ghazanffar, AAG. Date of hearing : 12th & 13th December, 2005 O R D E R IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ. Listed petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2nd October 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that vide FIR Ex.PC/1 dated 1st April 1997 lodged by Sheikh Attique Ahmed (PW-12) at Police Station Crl.P.848-L/2002 etc 2 Cantt. Sialkot, alleging therein that when he was present in his house alongwith Zaheer Haider his business partner, his wife Farida Atteeq and two sons namely Mohsin Ateeq aged about 11/12 years and Danish Ateeq aged about 8/9 years and his father Sh. Shafique Ahmed who was lying on the bed, all of a sudden three persons duly armed with pistol entered into the room. His wife made a shriek on seeing them, his father got up from the bed and by raising Lalkara made an attempt to catch hold of one of the accused. At the same time one of the accused fired with his pistol hitting his father on his neck who fell down on the ground. The third accused kept watch while holding pistol in his hand and also threatened them that if any one of them made an attempt to move he would be met with the same fate. Two of the accused took his son namely Mohsin Ateeq to adjacent room and from an Almirah, they took away golden ornaments, one Rado Wrist watch (Ladies) and also searched for Cash. One of the accused kept watch on the inmates of room while holding pistol and also continued threatening them. The accused remained in his house for 25/30 minutes and thereafter scaled over the wall behind the house upon which he and others raised hue and cry attracting their neighbors. His father was shifted to hospital but he died on his way to hospital. Accordingly FIR of the incident was registered. Accused persons involved in the commission of offence were arrested and following six persons were sent up to answer the charge : - 1. Ghulam Abbas 2. Arshad Masih. 3. Iftikhar Ahmad alias Chand 4. Irfan Javed alias Bhaia. 5. Munir Ahmad. 6. Shaukat Ali. Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 6th November 1997 convicted/awarded following sentences to the accused persons : - Crl.P.848-L/2002 etc 3 U/s 458 PPC Iftikhar Ahmed @ Chand, Arshad Masih and Ghulam Abbas 14 years R.I. with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default whereof to suffer further two years R.I. each. U/s 458/114 PPC Arfan Javaid @ Bhaia, Munir Ahmed and Shaukat Ali 14 years R.I. with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default whereof to suffer further two years R.I. each. U/s 395 PPC Ghulam Abbas, Arshad, Iftikhar Ahmad @ Chand, Arfan Javaid @ Bhaia, Munir Ahmad and Shaukat Ali. R.I. for life with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default whereof to suffer further two years R.I. each. U/s 396 PPC Ghulam Abbas, Arshad Masih and Iftikhar @ Chand. Death sentence subject to confirmation by the High Court, with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default whereof to suffer further two years each U/s 396 PPC Arfan Javed @ Bhaia, Munir Ahmad and Shaukat Ali. R.I. for life with payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default whereof to suffer further two years R.I. each. U/s 412 PPC Ghulam Abbas, Arahad Masih, Iftikhar Ahmad @ Chand, Arfan Javed, Munir Ahmad and Shaukat Ali. 10 years R.I. with payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default whereof to suffer further one year R.I. each. Learned High Court, however, up-held the sentence of death of one of the petitioner namely Ghulam Abbas, whereas sentence awarded to Arshad Masih and Iftikhar Ahmed alias Chand was reduced to life imprisonment. Sentence awarded to other convicts namely Arfan Javaid @ Bhaia, Munir Ahmed and Shaukat Ali was reduced to seven years R.I. As far as remaining sentences under Section 396 PPC awarded to the convicts were maintained by the High Court by means of impugned judgment. Listed petitions have been filed on behalf of convicts for leave to appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing in Civil Petition No.848-L of 2002 contended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 391 read with Section 396 PPC, the accused deserve for same sentence as they are all equally responsible for the commission of offence. On having reduced the sentence of the other convicts, the sentence of the petitioner Ghulam Abbas is not liable to be maintained. To substantiate his plea he placed reliance upon the cases of Puranmal Agarwalla and others v. Rautmal Pincha (AIR 1953 “Assam 44), Shivappa and others v. Hyderabad State (AIR 1955 Hyd. 147), Geedo and others v. the State (1986 P.Cr.L.J. 2192), Crl.P.848-L/2002 etc 4 Abdul Qayyum and others v. The State (PLD 2004 Karachi 232), Khalid Mehmood and four others v. The State (2004 SCMR 199). 4. It may be noted that as far as convict Munir Ahmed is concerned he entered into compromise with the L.Rs. of the deceased whereas Arfan Javed @ Bhaia and Shaukat Ali are contesting the conviction awarded to them. As far as question in respect of acceptance or otherwise of the compromise is concerned, it will be dealt with in view of the judgment in the case of Muhammad Rawab v. The State (2004 SCMR 1170). However, at this stage having seen the law relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner-Ghulam Abbas, prima facie, we are of the opinion that if the sentence of death of Ghulam Abbas is maintained then remaining convicts would also be liable to the sentence for death. Therefore, while grating leave to appeal in their cases as well notices be also issued to them to explain as to why their sentences may also not be enhanced. Thus for the above reasons, inter alia, to examine the contentions put forward by the learned for petitioners as well as merits of the case to the extent of other accused persons, leave to appeal is granted. Chief Justice J. J. Islamabad 12-12-2005 MS/* APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019 and Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019 (Against judgment dated 09.07.2019 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.191 of 2018) Aamir Shahzad (in Cr.P. No.849/2019) Qaiser Shahzad (in Cr.P. No.850/2019) …Petitioner(s) Versus The State & another (in Cr.P. No.849/2019) The State (in Cr.P. No.850/2019) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Raja Rizwan Abbasi, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the State: Mian Asghar Ali, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan. Date of hearing: 10.06.2020. JUDGMENT Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aamir Shahzad son of Talib Hussain and Qaisar Shahzad son of Muhammad Akram, petitioners, were returned a guilty verdict by the Drug Court Islamabad for commission of offences under sections 23(1)(a)(vii), 23(1)(c) and 23(1)(i) of the Drugs Act, 1976; convicted under sections 27(1) and 27(4) of the Act ibid, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 & 3 years along with fine respectively or to undergo six months simple imprisonment in default thereof; the sentences were ordered to run concurrently; their appeals met with no better fate vide impugned judgment dated 9-7-2019, vires whereof, are being assailed through the captioned petitions; bound by a common thread, these are being decided through this single judgment. Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019 and Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Drug Inspector, Shabbir Ahmed (PW-1), had no authority to search the premises or to impound drugs and as such entire exercise is a nullity in the eye of law; it is further argued that there is nothing on the record to confirm that the impounded drugs were unregistered inasmuch as no such certification from the DRAP has been brought on record by the prosecution; his next grievance is that none from amongst the members of the Quality Control Board entered the witness-box and, thus, mere reliance by the Courts below on an affidavit purportedly submitted by the petitioners is far from being sufficient to drive home the charge; he blamed Dr. Shuja Nawaz to be the actual owner of the outlet, let off by the prosecution for considerations other than noble. The Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Argument that Shabbir Ahmed, Drug Inspector (PW-1), lacked authority to carry out the raid and seize the contraband is entirely beside the mark; in the witness-box, he categorically asserted his status on the strength of Notification No.1(19)-Law/2004(Vol-III)- 578 dated 17th February, 2012 (Mark-A), a position uncontroverted during the trial. Section 18(d) of the Drugs Act, 1976 does not place any clog on the powers of Inspectors so as to “enter and search, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any building, vessel or place, in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act or any rules has been or is being committed or may continue to be committed”. In exercise of powers vesting in the witness, he was well within the remit of law to seize unregistered drugs. These were secured vide inventory Ex.P1 to P-18 on Form-5 (Ex.PA), transmitted to the Quality Control Board Islamabad vide letter dated 12.9.2017; an exercise that required no additional authorization. Both the petitioners appeared before the Quality Control Board in response to show cause notice dated 25.9.2017, before whom Aamir Shahzad took the following position, in writing, depicted as Ex.PB and Ex.PE, respectively:- Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019 and Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019 3 Perusal of above exhibits confirms purchase of stamp papers by Aamir Shahzad, petitioner, from a stamp vendor, with his thumb impression affixed on its back while both of them signed and thumb marked the statements. Plea for the exclusion of Ex.PB & PE from consideration on the ground of their admission in evidence being violative of procedure provided under section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not hold water; before the Board, petitioners were neither being Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019 and Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019 4 indicted nor called upon to plead guilty; the Board merely solicited their response to the complaint and furnished cause as to why they be not proceeded for contravention of the provisions of the Act ibid to comply with the procedural requirement, sine qua non to launch prosecution under the Act; by their own choice, they pledged future good conduct and took positions, seemingly voluntary, however, found by them embarrassing during the trial. Qaisar Shahzad petitioner was confronted by the trial Court with Ex.PE during his examination under section 342 of the Code ibid when he denied to have submitted any reply whereas Aamir Shahzad petitioner when confronted with his response evaded the answer. An obstinate bald denial or evasive response cannot override positive evidence. Similarly, the prosecution was not required to produce any member of Quality Control Board to join the witnesses to drive home the charge. The functions of the Quality Control Board are supervisory/regulatory in nature and as such for prosecution of an offence under the Act, the Drug Inspector himself can discharge the onus. The argument is otherwise irrelevant as the petitioners never opted to summon any member of the Board during the trial nor any prejudice has been alleged. The entire line of defence is unrealistically hyper technical. Likewise, no certification was required by the DRAP as all the registered medicines are officially listed by the Ministry of Health. Contrary to their counsel, the petitioners never blamed Dr. Shuja Nawaz as being the man behind the scene; according to their statements before the Quality Control Board, Dr. Shuja Nawaz was a qualified person employed by them, statedly absent during the raid. View concurrently taken by the Courts below being well within the remit of law is not open to any legitimate exception. Petitions fail. Leave declined. Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, the 10th June, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed Criminal Petition Nos. 851-L and 827-L of 2016 (Against the judgment dated 26.05.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Cr. Appeal No.1003/2012 with M.R. No.196/2012) Zeeshan alias Shani (in Cr.P.851-L/2016) Muhammad Ayub (in Cr.P.827-L/2016) …Petitioner(s) Versus Muhammad Ayub & another (in Cr.P.851-L/2016) The State & another (in Cr.P.827-L/2016) …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Azam Nazeer Tarar, ASC (in Cr.P.851-L/2016) Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, ASC (in Cr.P.827-L/2016) For the State: N.R. Date of hearing: 06.08.2020. ORDER Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Junaid Ayub, 20/21, was shot dead with a .30 caliber pistol on 22.03.2010 at 3:30 p.m. within the precincts of Police Station City Sumandri, Faisalabad; incident was reported by his father Muhammad Ayub (PW-2), who blamed Zishan alias Shani and Abid Ali accused for the crime; both let off by the police during investigation, tried subsequently by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in a private complaint, resulting into acquittal of the latter; convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the petitioner, however, was sentenced to death vide judgment dated 14.04.2012, altered into imprisonment for life by the High Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2016, being Criminal Petition Nos. 851-L and 827-L of 2016 2 impugned both by the convict as well as the complainant through the captioned petitions. Prosecution case is primarily structured upon ocular account furnished by Asad Ayub and Abid Ali PWs. According to the witnesses, they were on way when the accused confronted them in the backdrop of a previous quarrel. Abid Ali, since acquitted, is attributed exhortation pursuant whereto Zishan alias Shani targeted the deceased on his chest with solitary shot, confirmed during autopsy conducted on the same day. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that there was no occasion for the courts below to acquit Abid Ali, firmly placed in the community of intention after both the courts below relied upon the ocular account through a source aboveboard; the bottom line is that section 34 of the Code ibid is not a dead letter and the courts are required to give effect to the legislative intent to bring each accomplice to the task found guilty in furtherance of common intention. Both the accused shared the motive and as such there was no space to draw distinction in their culpability except for the actual shot fatally fired in compliance with the command, issued by Abid Ali, concluded the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the convict, on the other hand, contends that the deceased was done to death in an un-witnessed occurrence as is evident from the tenor of First Information Report lodged by deceased’s father who had admittedly not seen the occurrence; it is argued that Asad Ayub (PW-3), no other than deceased real brother, would have reported the matter to the police in a normal course and his induction as a witness heavily reflects upon the veracity of prosecution case. It is next argued that according to the investigation conducted by Asghar Ali SI, the murder was in fact committed by one Usman and it was so confirmed by Naseer and Nasir who had actually witnessed the occurrence; he has stressed upon the vagueness of the alleged motive to argue that there was no occasion for the convict-petitioner to take on the deceased; he has also referred to non-availability of any casing from the spot and an inconsequential recovery to conclude that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction. 3. Given the role attributed to Abid Ali, co-accused, in the face of a non-specific motive and sudden unanticipated encounter, his acquittal by the learned trial Judge, upheld by the High Court does not appear to be based upon conclusions that can be viewed as Criminal Petition Nos. 851-L and 827-L of 2016 3 preposterous or impossible. It is by now well settled that reversal of acquittal requires strong grounds and cannot be interfered with merely on the possibility of a contra view. Leave is declined in Criminal Petition No.827 of 2016. However, in the totality of circumstances, we consider it expedient to re-appraise evidence qua Zishan alias Shani convict to ensure safe administration of criminal justice with a view to examine the investigative conclusions, diametrically incompatible with the case set up in the crime report. Leave is granted. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 6th August, 2020 Not approved for reporting Azmat/-

a Ii I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR MR. JUSTICE SA Y Y ED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NA QVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 852 OF 2021 (Against the order dated 17.06.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Cr.M.No. 1 127-B12021) Chaudhry Nadeem Sultan VERSUS .Petitioner(s) The State through P. G. Punjab and another .Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhry, Sr. ASC For the State: Mr. Abid Majeed, DPG Mr. Athar Ismail, CPO Syed Ghazanfar Shah, SSP Ms. Shazia, DSP Mr. Sikandar, LO. Mr. Mukhtar, Ex-1.0. For the Complainant: Malik Waheed Anjum, ASC Date of Hearing: 12.11.2 02 1 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NA (WI, J. Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 38512021 dated 11. 03.2021 under Sections 302132414491109134 PPC at Police Station Saddar Berooni, Rawalpindi in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with rifle fired on different parts of the deceased whereas the fires made by his co-accused with pistol landed on the chest and belly of the deceased due to previous enmity. -1 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.852 OF 2021 -: 2 :- 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that though the petitioner is ascribed the direct role of causing fire-arm injuries but during the course of investigation he was found innocent and his name was placed in Column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Contends that the prosecution has not challenged the opinion of the police and as such it has attained finality. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail as the case of the petitioner squarely falls under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. 4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently argued that though the petitioner has not been challaned by the Investigating Officer, still there is ample material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged accusation. Contends that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is artificial and that it can be procured easily. Contends that the affidavits furnished by 18 persons have no value as the same are customary in nature. Lastly, contends that inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the place where the petitioner claims presence at the time of occurrence is hardly 20 kilometers which can be covered within 10-15 minutes through motorcycle. Hence he is not entitled for the concession of bail. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has taken place on 11. 03.2021 at 2:20 p.m., whereas the matter was reported to the police at 7:40 p.m. Admittedly there is delay of more than 05 hours in lodging of the FIR for which no explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. Whereas the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 06 kilometers. Both these aspects of the case are connected inter-se which requires determination as per dictates of justice especially when there is strong motive alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ascribed direct role of causing fire-arm injury to the deceased, however, the petitioner pleaded plea of alibi and during the course of investigation the same was found to be correct and as such the name of the petitioner was placed in column No.2 of the -.3.- CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 852 OF 2021 report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.G. as no recovery has been affected from the petitioner during the course of investigation. Now the question which requires determination is whether the case of the petitioner is frilly covered by the dictum of further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2) Cr.P.G. Perusal of the opinion given by the Investigating Officer is based upon the GDR of the cell phone of the petitioner which shows his presence away from the place of occurrence. We had summoned the GPO and the Investigating Officer vide order dated 10.11.2021 for a limited purpose to know whether the opinion given by the Investigating Officer was solely based upon GDR and it can be made basis to declare any person innocent in a case of heinous nature. The GPO, present in Court, has stated that about 100 persons appeared before the investigating Officer amongst those 18 persons furnished their duly verified affidavits, that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was present in chehlum of a co-villager and even the son of deceased had furnished affidavit in this regard wherein it is specifically stated that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was present over there. The CDR was taken into consideration only to verify the contents Of the affidavits and oral statements of the persons who have appeared in defence of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer. We have gone through the law on the subject and found that the definition of an accused person is not provided anywhere in Cr.P.G., rather it was this Court, for the first time in a salutary judgment reported as F. B. A. and another Vs. The State (PLD 1975 SC 506) defined the word "accused person". The same is reproduced as under:- "in my view the mere lodging of an information does not make a person an accused nor does a person against whom an investigation is being conducted by the police can strictly be called an accused. Such person may or may not be sent UP for trial. The information may be found to be false. An accused is, therefore, a person charged in a trial. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an aaccused o as a person "charged with a crime" and an"accusation" as an "indictment'. Aiyer in his Manual on Law Terms also gives the same meaning. I am of the view, therefore, that a person becomes an accused only when charged with an offence." Lt CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 852 OF 2021 -: 4 - Perusal of the above definition clearly reflects that any person against whom an accusation is made cannot be dubbed as an accused unless and until he is found involved by the Investigating Officer and in this regard a specific order for his arrest is made by him. All these ingredients are missing, therefore, as far as the status of the petitioner is concerned, he cannot be termed as an accused person. However, we have been informed that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted before the Trial Court and the Court has taken cognizance while summoning accused person which clearly reflects that the summon has been issued for furnishing bail bonds which is in accordance to the procedure laid down under Sections 911204 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P. C. calling for flirt her inquiry into his guilt. 6. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2021. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,0001- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 7. Before parting with the order, we have been informed that co-accused of the petitioner are still at large, therefore, the CPO is directed to adopt all possible measures for bringing the culprits before the law strictly in accordance with law. He is further directed to furnish fortnightly progress reports in this regard for our perusal in Chambers. Islamabad, the 12th November, 2021 Approved For Reporting Waqas Naseer/ I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.860 OF 2019 AND CMA NO.1760 OF 2019 (Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 111841/2017) Tariq Saeed … Petitioner Versus The State … Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Tanveer Iqbal, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR For the Respondent (State) : Haider Ali, Addl: Prosecutor General for NAB Date of Hearing : 12.06.2020 JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- Crl. M. A No.1760 of 2019. For the reasons mentioned therein, the documents appended with this petition are allowed to be integral part of the record. Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019: The petitioner has sought leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the judgment dated 13.06.2019 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 111841 of 2017. Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019 -: 2 :- 2. The facts necessitated to disclose the prosecution case are that petitioner being a public servant in the capacity as XEN (BPS-18) remained posted in Zila Council for a considerable period at Lahore. During the subsistence of his service a source report was generated wherein serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner that he in the capacity as a public servant while misusing of authority is involved in corruption and corrupt practices. As a consequence an enquiry was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner dated 12.09.2006. During inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer scrutinized the allegation at length and submitted a comprehensive report to the quarter concerned. As the enquiry officer concurred the details of the source report, the competent authority while examining the details of the report, ordered for upgradation of enquiry into investigation with the approval of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau vide dated 19.10.2010. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner surfaced during the investigation conducted by various investigating officers, it was unanimously concluded that he being a public servant while holding a public office indulged into corruption and corrupt practices. As a result of same, he acquired massive immovable properties and was also holding a number of bank accounts maintained by him which were squarely disproportionate to known source of his income. The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner purchased the properties against the name of his wife Mst. Surayya Tariq as “Benamidar”. She was also holding bank accounts against her name although she had no other known source of income. Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019 -: 3 :- 3. Soon after completion of investigation proceedings, reference was chalked out against the petitioner while in terms of section 18(g) read with Section 24(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Requisite sanction from Chairman, National Accountability Bureau was obtained, hence, a reference No. 7/2015 dated 12.02.2015 under section 9 (a) (v) (vi) (xii) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 was filed before Accountability Court No.1, Lahore. The learned trial court took the cognizance of the offences and on the basis of accusation charge was framed against the petitioner on 07.05.2015. During the course of proceedings before the learned trial court, prosecution to substantiate the accusation levelled in the reference produced as many as 14 witnesses. A number of documents were also tendered in evidence. The learned trial court recorded the statement of petitioner under section 342 Cr.P.C, however, co-accused Mst. Surayya Tariq died soon after recording of her statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. as such the proceedings against her stood abated. The petitioner also produced Syed Obaid-ur-Rehman, Assistant Commissioner (Inland Revenue) who appeared as DW-1 in defence of the petitioner, however, the petitioner himself not opted to appear in his own defence in terms of section 340 Cr.P.C. Besides this, the petitioner also tendered in evidence certain documents on 03.03.2017 and 19.05.2017. 4. The learned trial court after completion of trial found the allegation levelled against the petitioner stands proved, hence, sentenced the petitioner under section 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for imprisonment of seven years R.I. He was Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019 -: 4 :- further awarded fine of Rs.1,63,00,000/- The farm house belonging to the petitioner was also ordered to be confiscated in favour of the State. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court dated 15.11.2017; the petitioner filed criminal appeal No.111841/2017 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 13.06.2019 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and the judgment of the learned trial court was maintained in toto, hence, instant petition. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the accusation against the petitioner. Contends that conviction and sentence has been recorded on the basis of photocopies and even the documents are not exhibited as per spirit of law. The learned counsel especially referred the statement of Mahboob-ul-Hassan (PW-7), therefore, the sentence and conviction recorded against petitioner is uncalled for. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner is an old man of 72 years facing incarceration and has already undergone substantial part of the sentence. Lastly it has been argued by learned counsel that even if at all it is assumed that prosecution has succeeded to establish the case, the sentence of the petitioner is harsh, hence, he prayed for reduction of sentence on the ground of poor health and old age of the petitioner. 6. Learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of NAB has argued that he being involved in white-collar crime cannot seek exception. It is further argued that being a public office holder he has crossed all limits and amassed huge properties disproportionate to Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019 -: 5 :- his known source of income; hence, he is not entitled for any leniency. The learned Law Officer contended that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law as Mahboob-ul-Hassan (PW-7) clerk of Motor Registration Authority, Excise and Taxation Department at the time of his statement on 28.10.2015 was in possession of record of the vehicles registered against the name of the petitioner and his (late) wife. During the course of proceedings he produced before the court the attested photocopies whereas the record was also available, hence, this contention is without any legal justification and is based upon misconception. Contends that two courts below had given concurrent findings qua the guilt of the petitioner and he was earlier involved in such like activities. In this regard, he entered into plea- bargain in reference No.07/2001 on 08.07.2001. Reference No. 94/2004 and reference No. 48/2016 are still pending adjudication before Accountability Court, hence, no exception can be taken by this Court at this stage, however, learned Law Officer could not controvert the factum of the old age & sickness of the petitioner. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at preliminary stage and gone through the record. 8. There is no denial to this fact that both the courts below had attended the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner minutely and found that accusation against the petitioner was fully proved. There is no second thought about the involvement of the petitioner in corruption and corrupt practices, even the petitioner himself tendered in evidence the record of previous reference No.07/2001 wherein he entered into plea-bargain Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019 -: 6 :- whereupon the application was allowed by competent authority dated 12.06.2001. The petitioner is also involved in other references, the detail of which has also been mentioned above which reflects the antecedent of the petitioner qua his involvement. We are reluctant to make any observation as it might prejudice his case but facts remain that reference No. 94/2004 and reference No. 48/2016 are still pending adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction. We have scrutinized the evidence available on the record with due care and caution. The main stay of the arguments of learned counsel regarding production of photocopies is not substantiated from the record rather the record clearly reflected that these were attested copies when the record of the vehicles under the name of petitioner and his wife was also available in the court. Even during the course of cross examination the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not confronted the examination-in-chief of Mahboob-ul- Hassan (PW-7) which is assumed that same is an admitted fact. Any unrebutted piece of evidence during the course of cross examination leaves only one conclusion that the same is an admitted by the defence. Otherwise the petitioner was at liberty to agitate this aspect before the learned trial court as an objection but the same has not been raised. Even the same could have been agitated during the proceedings before the learned High Court. We have perused the record but could not find an iota of evidence available on the record to substantiate the contention ever raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before two forums below, hence, at this juncture of time raising of such plea without substance seems to be nothing but an afterthought. Criminal Petition No.860 of 2019 -: 7 :- 9. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we do not find any reason for interference into the findings given by both the courts below. As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner qua the old age and indisposition of the petitioner is concerned, it is observed that very genesis of white- collar crime has engulfed the educated-cum-privileged class while intruding its contours into the society which has almost become epidemic leaving miserable repercussions individually as well as collectively. It is detrimental to the very fabric of the society. However, while relying on case titled " MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias Chaudhry versus THE STATE" (1994 SCMR 667) and while taking into consideration that the petitioner is an old man with poor health condition, whereas he has already undergone substantial part of sentence recorded by both the courts, we deem it appropriate to meet the ends of justice reduce the sentence already inflicted upon the petitioner from seven years to five years while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs.1,63,00,000/- and confiscation of farm-house belonging to petitioner in favour of the State. In the above said terms, this petition is converted into appeal and partly allowed . Judge Judge Judge Islamabad, 12.06.2020 Approved for reporting. Athar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL MR. JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.863-L OF 2021 (Against the order dated 01.06.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No.29729-B/2021) Muhammad Ajmal …Petitioner(s) Versus The State and another …Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shahid Azeem, ASC For the State: Mr. Tariq Rafiq Bhandera, ASC Um-e-Habiba, S.I. For the Complainant(s): Mr. Seerat Hussain Naqvi, ASC Date of Hearing: 15.11.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore with a prayer to grant post arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 51 dated 14.07.2020 under Sections 20, 21 and 24 of Pakistan Electronic Crime Act, 2016 at Police Station FIA Cyber Crime Circle, Lahore in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. As per the contents of the crime report, it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner along with co-accused kidnapped his wife on 13.11.2019 and captured her objectionable videos by intoxicating her, a criminal case for kidnapping was lodged at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. It was further alleged that the CRIMINAL PETITION NO.863-L OF 2021 -: 2 :- petitioner and his co-accused have threatened and harassed him by sharing the video through Whatsapp from Mobile No.0305-7016978 to his mobile No.0300-2927130. The petitioner and his co-accused have also threatened the complainant to withdraw the case, otherwise they would upload the video globally. 3. At the very outset it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the objectionable videos were shared by co-accused to whom concession of bail has already been extended. Further contends that the bail to the co-accused was granted on the basis of statement made by the victim herself. Contends that following the rule of consistency, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. Contends that there is no denial to this fact that the instrument used for sharing the video exists against the name of the co-accused. Contends that the case of the petitioner is at better footings as compared to the co-accused, therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that during the course of investigation the petitioner was found to be with the co-accused who had acted under the patronage and instructions of the petitioner and he was declared as the main culprit. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused and as such he does not deserve any concession of bail. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no denial to this fact that it is very unfortunate that this occurrence had taken place wherein objectionable videos were shared setting the law in motion while attracting the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 24 of Pakistan Electronic Crime Act, 2016. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail on the basis of concessional statement made by the victim herself. Apart from this, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.863-L OF 2021 -: 3 :- we have noted that the maximum punishment under the statute is 05 years which do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned Law Officer frankly conceded that the instrument used for sharing the objectionable video was of the co- accused and as such the case of the petitioner is at better footings as compared to co-accused. As the co-accused of the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9) wherein this Court held as under:- “Without going into the merits of the case and the various rulings mentioned in the petition for leave to appeal requiring our consideration and interpretation, we think that the petitioner should be released on bail on the principle of requirement of consistency in the same case and for the similar reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar to that of the petitioner was attributed had been so released by another learned Judge of the same High Court.” 6. Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to his guilt. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Lahore, the 15th of November, 2021 Approved for reporting Waqas Naseer/*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 879 OF 2021 (On appeal against the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Crl. Misc. No. 4853-B/2021) Muhammad Baqir … Petitioner VERSUS The State and another … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Rafaqat Islam Awan, ASC Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR For the Respondent (2): Mian Muhammad Ismail Thaheem, ASC a/w respondent No. 2 For the State: Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG Date of Hearing: 06.12.2021 ORDER SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Qamar Abbas by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide order dated 15.07.2021 in case registered vide FIR No. 146 dated 04.04.2020 under Sections 302 / 109 / 148 / 149 / 452 PPC at Police Station Nawan Shehar, District Khanewal, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 2. As per the contents of the crime report, on the fateful day and time, the respondent along with co-accused while armed with firearms trespassed into the house of the complainant and started firing. The respondent made fire shot with his rifle, which landed on the backside of the right hand of Majid Ali, paternal cousin of the complainant. The co-accused of the respondent also fired on the person of the said Majid Ali, which hit on the left side of his belly and he fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. Criminal Petition No. 879/2021 2 3. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was specifically nominated in the promptly lodged crime report with the specific allegation of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased. Contends that the ocular evidence corroborates with the medical evidence but the learned High Court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter. Contends that the respondent remained absconder for a period of about one year, which clearly shows that he was fully involved in the commission of the crime. Contends that the respondent is hardened criminal and is involved in so many criminal cases of murder and dacoity etc. Contends that to prevent the complainant from pursuing the case, the respondent had also launched murderous assault on the complainant and in this regard another criminal case has been registered against him and if the bail granted to him by the learned High Court is not cancelled, there is every possibility that he will again try to harm the complainant. Lastly contends that the order passed by the learned High Court being perverse and fanciful, the same may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail was granted to the respondent. He contended that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on different footings and once bail has been granted to an accused on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence available on record then for its cancellation exceptional strong reasons are required. He contended that the alleged injury ascribed to the respondent on the person of the deceased is on non-vital part of the body and could not result in death in the ordinary course of nature, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly granted bail to the respondent. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record. There is no denial to this fact that the respondent is nominated in the crime report wherein a specific accusation of causing firearm injury on the backside of right hand of the deceased has been leveled against him. Although the matter was reported to Criminal Petition No. 879/2021 3 the Police after about 4 hours but keeping in view the inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the police station i.e. 18 kilometers and the fact that in such like situations, the people firstly try to save the life of injured, the same would be considered a promptly lodged FIR. Previous enmity between the parties is not denied. The instant occurrence has taken place in broad daylight whereas the parties are known to each other, therefore, there is no chance of mis-identification. The injury ascribed to the respondent is fully supported by medical evidence. We have been informed that after the registration of the present FIR, the respondent had filed application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Trial Court but when he could not get the relief sought for, he approached the learned High Court and ultimately had withdrawn his pre-arrest bail petition on 09.09.2020 but despite that he did not surrender, fled away and remained absconder for a considerable period of time. The perusal of available record shows that the respondent had allegedly launched murderous assault on the complainant on 22.01.2021 for which a separate criminal case bearing FIR No. 41/2021 has been got registered by the complainant party. Otherwise, the mode and manner of occurrence shows that the respondent along with co-accused had trespassed into the house of the complainant with intent to kill the deceased as they started straight firing upon the deceased. Mere the fact that the fire shot made by the respondent hit on the hand of the deceased does not make any difference because the respondent had made a direct fire on the deceased with the intention to kill but it hit on his hand. The postmortem report clearly depicts that both injuries are contributory toward death of deceased. Prima facie, the respondent is vicariously liable for the offence committed and had shared the common intention to take life of the deceased. However, the learned High Court did not take into consideration any of the above-said aspects of the matter, therefore, we are constrained to hold that the reasoning advanced by the learned High Court while granting bail to the respondent is artificial in nature. We are under obligation to attend to the facts and circumstances of the lis brought before us and to evaluate the same in such a manner so that no injustice is likely to be done to either of the party. In the instant case, the Criminal Petition No. 879/2021 4 learned High Court has not given any justiciable reasoning to bring the case of the respondent within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C calling for further probe into his guilt. Upon assessment of the available record, we have found that the impugned order does not have any nexus with the guidelines enunciated by the superior courts from time to time with reference to grant of bail. In our opinion, in the instant case the learned High Court while granting bail to the respondent has erred in law and facts and has passed an order which is perverse, fanciful and arbitrary, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As a consequence, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and cancel the bail granted to the respondent by the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 15.07.2021. JUDGE JUDGE Islamabad, the 6th of December, 2021 Approved For Reporting Khurram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN MR. JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK Criminal Petition No.888/2015 (On appeal from the judgment dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Crl.Misc. No.1787-B/2015) Naseem Akhtar …Petitioner Versus The State ..Respondent For the petitioner: Mr. S.M. Ayub Bokhari, ASC Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR For the respondent: Raja Inaam Amin Minhas, Spl. Prosecutor, ANF Date of hearing: 27.1.2016 ORDER Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— After arguing the case at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if the Jail Authorities are directed to extend all required facilities to the suckling baby and her mother (the accused petitioner) during confinement/detention and the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a month, then he will not press this petition. 2. We have perceived from the fax massage of the Superintendent Jail, Rawalpindi that the petitioner is a suckling baby of the age of one year and six months and depends on breast feeding. The Superintendant Central Jail, Rawalpindi is directed to ensure that the baby shall not suffer due to un-nutrition and all required standard facilities be provided to the baby and her mother, which is required in such cases, while the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within one month, after receiving copy of this order. If the prosecution or the defense delays in the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court may resort Crl.P.888/15 2 to take appropriate action by imposing action and may adopt any coercive measure to ensure the conclusion of the trial. 3. If, in case, the trial is not concluded within one month and the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not attributable to the petitioner or any person, acting on her behalf then, fresh bail petition be considered favourable to her, by the Trial Court. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. Judge Judge Islamabad, the 27th January, 2016 Nisar /-‘