Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 497(5) – Cancellation of bail – Considerations for cancellation of bail distinct from grant of bail – Bail once granted requires strong and exceptional grounds for cancellation – Petitioner, complainant in the case, sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge – Allegations against the respondent included unlawful entry into the complainant’s house and assault – Petitioner contended that the respondent had remained a fugitive from the law and had a criminal record, making him undeserving of bail – However, prosecution failed to establish any misuse of bail by the respondent – High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had rightly exercised discretion in granting bail since Section 354, P.P.C. was bailable and Section 452, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S. 497, Cr.P.C. – Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Usman v. Muhammad Azam and another (2001 PCr.LJ 1461 Peshawar) • Nasir and others v. The State (NLR 1991 Criminal 527 Lahore) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497----Bail application----Grant of bail----Scope----Accused charged under S. 354/457, P.P.C. and S. 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly entering the complainant's house at night and attempting to commit rape----FIR lodged with a delay, though the police station was at a short distance from the place of occurrence----Complainant identified the accused in the light of a lantern, but the lantern was not taken into possession by the police----Co-accused granted bail by the Sessions Judge, and no cancellation application was filed against him----Complainant’s statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. did not explicitly state the accused’s intent----Held, that keeping in view the delay in lodging FIR, absence of material evidence, and inconsistency in statements, the case was fit for grant of bail----Bail granted subject to furnishing surety. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 354/457----Outraging modesty and house trespass----Allegation that accused entered complainant’s house and attempted to assault her----No clear evidence of intent or corroborative material on record----Accused granted bail in the absence of strong incriminating evidence. (c) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)---- ----S. 18----Attempt to commit zina----Absence of material evidence to establish intent----Complainant did not explicitly state the accused’s intent in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.----No recovery of crucial evidence (lantern) that formed the basis of identification----Accused granted bail. ---Disposition: Bail granted subject to surety of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in like amount.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---- S. 354-A Outraging the modesty of a woman—Elements of proof—Prosecution alleged that the accused grappled with the complainant, tore her shirt, and attempted to outrage her modesty—Held, that evidence did not support the charge under S. 354-A, PPC—Contradictions in the statements of the complainant and her son raised doubts about the incident—Independent witness did not know the accused’s name and could not identify other alleged onlookers—Delay of 20 hours in lodging the FIR also cast doubt on the prosecution’s version—Trial court rightly concluded that the charge was not established beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- S. 342 Statement of accused—Evaluation—Accused denied charges, alleging that the case was falsely lodged to pressure his family into withdrawing abduction cases against the complainant’s son—Court noted discrepancies in prosecution evidence and found that the alleged torn shirt was merely unstitched, indicating possible fabrication—Findings supported accused’s claim of false implication. (c) Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance (XXV of 1991): ---- S. 13 Appeal against acquittal—Principles for interference—Appellate court must not interfere unless judgment is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or fails to consider material facts—Held, that trial court had properly analyzed the evidence, found serious contradictions, and applied correct legal principles—Acquittal order did not warrant interference. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Findings of trial court upheld—Prosecution failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt—Accused acquitted.

Summary: A private complaint must be filed with the Magistrate unless the law permits otherwise. The Session Court cannot take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the Magistrate sends it the case under section 190(2) Cr.P.C. ---- FIR Quashed -- 190 CrPC-- Background In the case of Umar Hasnain and others vs. The State and another, Respondent No.2, Shahnaz Parveen, filed a private complaint against Muhammad Safdar and the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), alleging that Safdar, her ex-husband, along with the petitioners, trespassed into her house, assaulted her, and took possession of the property. Shahnaz claimed the house as her dower property and continued to live there even after her divorce. Following an incident on 16.06.2020, she filed an FIR which was subsequently influenced by the accused, leading her to file a private complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, admitted the complaint and summoned the accused to face trial. ----Issues: 1) Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint directly. ---2) Whether the allegations against the petitioners were baseless and vexatious. ---3) Whether procedural irregularities in filing the complaint could be cured under Section 537 of the Cr.P.C. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge: The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint directly. Under Sections 190 and 193 of the Cr.P.C., a private complaint must be filed with a Magistrate, who then forwards it to the Sessions Court if it falls within its jurisdiction. The judge stated, "The Session Court cannot take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the Magistrate sends it the case under section 190(2) Cr.P.C." -----Procedural Irregularities: The petitioners contended that the direct filing of the complaint was a jurisdictional error, not a mere irregularity. The court agreed, stating, "The rule is well established that where the law requires an act to be done in a specific manner, it has to be done in that manner alone, and such dictate of law cannot be considered a mere technicality." -----Baseless Allegations: While the court did not delve deeply into the merits of the case due to the jurisdictional issue, it noted the petitioners' contention that the allegations were influenced and part of a broader dispute over property. However, since the primary issue was procedural, the court focused on that aspect. The court quashed the proceedings undertaken by the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing Respondent No.2 the option to file a fresh private complaint in accordance with the law. The judge concluded, "Respondent No.2 could not bypass the Magistrate while presenting her private complaint, and the Additional Sessions Judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over it. The entire proceedings are liable to be quashed." -----Citations/Precedents: Bismillah Khan and others v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 481) Emphasizes the necessity of filing private complaints with a Magistrate. -----Muhammad Aslam and others v. Mst. Natho Bibi (PLD 1977 Lahore 535) Discusses the role of Magistrates in scrutinizing complaints before forwarding to Sessions Court. -----Mehar Khan v. Yaqub Khan and another (1981 SCMR 267) Affirms the requirement for Magistrates to initially take cognizance of cases. -----Riffat Hayat v. Judge Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore, and another (1994 SCMR 2177) Clarifies the jurisdictional powers of special courts under specific statutes. -----State of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh and others (AIR 1964 SC 358) Discusses the principle that statutory provisions must be followed as prescribed.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Minor Contradictions can be ignored)Where some minor contradictions may be available which are not sufficient to create any serious doubt the same can be ignored which always are available in each and every case. ''For example, in acase where accused only told the main abductors on the way thatthe passage is clear and did not play any other role in theabduction he was tried and the death sentence was awarded tohim by the trial court and was confirmed by the High Court andHonourable Supreme Court commuted the sentence of death toimprisonment for life in case of Said Muhammad v. The State(1999 SCMR 2758). Reliance is also placed on the case ofKhawaja Hasanullah v. The State (1999 MLD 514) where itwas held as under:-"In cases of abduction for ransom, it isnot necessary that all the culprits must havecollectively done all the criminal actstogether from the stage of abduction tillextortion of money. In such cases mostly, thework is divided. Abduction is done by a fewof them, place of confinement is guarded byothers and ransom is extorted by one or twoof them. This is done under a planning. Theobject of all is to extort money. Therefore,the punishment could be the sameirrespective of the role played by each ofthem". '' --- It is settled law that accused can be convicted if the courtfind the direct oral evidence of one eye-witness to be reliable,trustworthy and confidence inspiring. In this respect reliance isplaced on the case of Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006SCMR 1857). The Supreme Court in the case of Niaz-Ud-Din v.The State (2011 SCMR 725) has also observed in respect of theability of the court to uphold a conviction for murder even basedon the evidence of one eye-witness provided that it was reliableand confidence inspiring and was substantiated from thecircumstances and other evidence since it is the quality and notthe quantity of evidence which is of importance. Further theSupreme Court in the case of Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi andothers (PLD 1980 SC 225) also held that "even in murder caseconviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, ifthe Court is satisfied that he is reliable."Advocate General Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain andothers (PLD 1995 SC 1), in a kidnapping for ransom case it wasobserved as under:-"It is a matter of public knowledgethat in Sindh on account of kidnapping forransom, commission of dacoities and otheroffences, the people are feeling unsecured.The learned trial court has dilated uponthese aspects in detail. I am inclined tosubscribe to the view found favour with it.The approach of the Court in matters like thecase in hand should be dynamic and if theCourt is satisfied that the offence has been committed in the manner in which it hasbeen alleged by the prosecution thetechnicalities should be overlooked withoutcausing any miscarriage of justice". --- ''We, therefore, uphold all the sentences, fines,and penalties for each offence in the judgment whilst dismissingthe appeals of the appellants.''

Summary: Bail Matters (Pre arrest bail Rejected In sections 452,337-A(I),504,506/2,354,337-F(i) PPC.) --- The complainant accused Imdad Ali and co-accused Abbas of committing fraud in a motorcycle scheme, leading to a dispute over Rs. 30,00,000. The FIR alleged criminal trespass, threats, and physical harm caused by the accused to the complainant party. The rejection of the Anticipatory Bail Application was based on the specific role attributed to the applicant in the commission of the offense. The judge, Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, considered the tentative view of the trial court, which rejected the pre-arrest bail. The trial court found the applicant fully implicated based on witness statements, with no malafide demonstrated. The judge observed that the offences, while not falling under the prohibitory clause, could still justify a denial of bail in exceptional circumstances.The judge referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Meeran Bux vs. The State and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347) and Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State (2005 SCMR 784), emphasizing the broadened interpretation to adjudicate malafide or malice.In evaluating the case, the judge noted the attribution of injury to the applicant, the house trespass, and the business transaction issue. The judge concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, dismissing the bail application and recalling the interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier.