Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure—Pre-arrest Bail—Scope and Principles: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498; Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 452, 353, 337AF, 430, 186, 427, 147, 148, 149; Section 20 of the Electronic Crimes Act (EHA). The accused-respondents were granted pre-arrest bail, which was subsequently confirmed by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot. The allegations against the accused included physical assault on the complainant, damage to official property, and misconduct within a government office. The High Court held that bail matters must be decided based on tentative assessment of the evidence collected during the investigation. Once bail is granted by a competent court, it cannot be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds. The court observed that the accused were not required for recovery or further investigation, and their case did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. ----Cited Principles: Bail cannot be cancelled arbitrarily; strong and cogent reasons are required. Tentative assessment at the bail stage does not involve a detailed evaluation of evidence. (b) Criminal Procedure—Credibility of Evidence—Trial Court’s Jurisdiction: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161. The court emphasized that credibility and scrutiny of witnesses, along with the truthfulness of evidence, are to be adjudicated by the trial court after the conclusion of the trial. At the bail stage, the court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence but only to assess its prima facie sufficiency for granting or refusing bail. (c) Bail—Non-Prohibitory Clause—Application of Law: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497. The case against the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and they were not required for further investigation. The court reiterated the established principle that bail is not to be routinely cancelled once granted unless strong grounds for cancellation are demonstrated. (d) Judicial Discretion—Bail Confirmation—Principles Governing: ----General Principles of Criminal Law. The court held that once bail is confirmed by a competent court, the revisional court must exercise restraint in interfering with such an order unless there is clear illegality, irregularity, or perversity. Mere dissatisfaction of the complainant is not sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. ----Disposition: Revision petition dismissed. Bail confirmation order upheld.

Summary: Bail granted ---Background:This case involves two criminal petitions (Nos. 1174 and 1202 of 2023) filed by Faheem Ullah against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 25.09.2023, which denied post-arrest bail. The petitions arose from separate FIRs (Nos. 691/2022 and 693/2022) registered at Police Station Badber, District Peshawar, under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), including 452, 427, 354, 506, 148, and 149, among others.??Issues:Whether the offenses listed in the FIRs fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which would generally restrict the granting of bail.Whether there is potential enmity that might have led to the wrongful implication of Faheem Ullah in the alleged crimes due to familial disputes related to another criminal case.?Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that the offenses mentioned in both FIRs do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., which means that bail cannot be automatically denied based solely on the nature of the offenses. The Court also considered potential motives for the petitioner?s implication arising from family disputes and previous criminal proceedings involving relatives. Notably, the petitioner?s mother is an eyewitness in a related murder case, suggesting possible motives for retaliation or wrongful implication.Both petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The Supreme Court granted bail to Faheem Ullah in both cases, subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 200,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.?Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.): Sections 452 (house-trespass), 427 (mischief causing damage), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object).Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Discusses the conditions under which bail may be granted or denied, particularly noting cases that fall under the prohibitory clause where bail is generally more restricted.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 417(2A):Appeal against acquittal---Principles for interference---Scope---Appeal filed by complainant against acquittal of three accused in a murder case was dismissed as trial court had given valid and cogent reasons for granting benefit of doubt—It is well-settled law that presumption of innocence is doubly applicable once an acquittal is recorded and that interference by appellate court is justified only where judgment is perverse, artificial, or legally flawed—Appellate court found no misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor any manifest error that could amount to a miscarriage of justice—Findings of the trial court were upheld.State v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 2011 SC 554, Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230, and Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 relied upon.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 452, 302, 149:Murder---Acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Trial court acquitted accused due to inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including:(i) The motive alleged was inconsistent with the identity of the victim;(ii) Only related witnesses were produced despite the incident occurring in broad daylight in a residential locality;(iii) Contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding presence of blood on clothes and rickshaw used for transport;(iv) Delay in sending evidence to chemical laboratory and failure to send recovered empty cartridge to FSL;(v) Weapons not recovered, and no CDR evidence provided;(vi) Presence of blackening on wound not corroborated by any witness testimony—Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 129(g):Presumption arising from withheld evidence---Adverse inference---Non-production of central witness (Sanas Ali)—a son of the complainant and an alleged eyewitness—invited adverse inference under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984, that had he been examined, his testimony would not have supported the prosecution—This omission further weakened the case.(d) Criminal Law---Standard of proof---Presumption of innocence---Judicial restraint in appeals against acquittal---It is a settled principle that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, which is a constitutional right, not a concession—Acquittal judgments should only be disturbed if they are perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from serious legal infirmities—Appellate court cannot substitute its own view merely on reappraisal unless trial court’s findings are wholly untenable.----Disposition: Appeal Dismissed—Acquittal Upheld.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 22-A & S. 22-B---Application for registration of FIR---Cross-version---Scope and maintainability. An application was filed under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., for the registration of an FIR and recording of a cross-version. The court observed that the applicant (respondent No. 4) was already part of the complainant party in a prior FIR (No.970/2022) related to an earlier incident. The medico-legal report suggested minor injuries, and the offences alleged (S.337-A(i) & S.337-F(i), P.P.C.) were non-cognizable. Therefore, there was no justification for recording a cross-version in the same FIR or for ordering the registration of a separate FIR. ----Cited Cases: Bahadur and another v. The State (PLD 1985 SC 62) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 452---Non-cognizable offences---House trespass---Scope and assessment. The medico-legal report of respondent No. 4 indicated minor injuries categorized under S. 337-A(i) and S. 337-F(i), P.P.C., which are non-cognizable offences. Allegations of house trespass under S. 452, P.P.C., were also raised but were deemed concocted and not supported by sufficient evidence. The police comments further confirmed that the allegations of respondent No. 4 were not substantiated. Consequently, no cognizable offence was made out to warrant the registration of an FIR. ----Cited Cases: Bahadur and another v. The State (PLD 1985 SC 62) (c) Administration of Justice---Alternate Remedy---Private Complaint: In cases where an FIR cannot be registered due to the absence of cognizable offences, the complainant retains the right to pursue an alternate remedy through a private complaint under the criminal justice system. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Magistrate's power under S. 22-A---Exercise of discretion---Scope. While exercising powers under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must ensure that sufficient grounds exist for the registration of an FIR, particularly when non-cognizable offences are alleged. In the present case, the Magistrate failed to appreciate the nature of the offences and passed an order for recording a cross-version without sufficient legal grounds. ----Disposition: Petition allowed. The impugned order dated 26.01.2023 was set aside, and the application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., filed by respondent No. 4, was dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- Ss. 302(b), 452, 148, 149, P.P.C.--- Qatl-e-amd, house trespass, rioting armed with a deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Appellant was convicted for abetting co-accused in committing murder and sentenced to life imprisonment under S. 302(b), P.P.C., along with concurrent sentences under Ss. 452, 148, and 149, P.P.C.---Prosecution case primarily rested on the complainant’s statement and eyewitness testimonies, which contained material contradictions and dishonest improvements---FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of four days, raising serious doubts about the prosecution’s version of events---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that the FIR was filed after consultation with elders, further weakening its credibility---Delay suggested the case had been fabricated after deliberation, rendering it unreliable---Reliance placed on Noor Muhammad v. The State (2010 SCMR 97) and Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan (2010 SCMR 105). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 154---FIR---Delayed registration---Effect---Incident occurred at 11:00 p.m., but FIR was registered after four days without any reasonable explanation---Court held that unexplained delay in FIR registration, particularly when there was an opportunity to inform the police earlier, created doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution’s case---Where delay is unexplained, it is presumed that time was used for consultation and false implication of the accused---Reliance placed on Iftikhar Hussain v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185) and Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428). (c) Criminal trial--- ---- Identification of accused---Source of light at crime scene---Effect---Prosecution contended that accused were identified with the help of solar bulb light at 11:00 p.m.---However, investigation officer did not collect or produce any evidence of the solar bulb, nor was it reflected in the crime scene sketch or site inspection report---Court held that the absence of proof regarding the source of light rendered the identification of accused doubtful---Reliance placed on Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344) and Abdul Rahim v. Ali Bux (2017 PCr.LJ 228). (d) Criminal trial--- ---- Motive---Enmity as a double-edged sword---Complainant admitted pre-existing enmity between her family and co-accused due to a matrimonial dispute---Court held that such prior enmity could be a reason for either committing the crime or falsely implicating the accused---Appellant was assigned a role of abetment, but no direct act of murder was attributed to him, despite being allegedly armed with a firearm---Mere presence without active participation in the commission of the crime was insufficient to maintain conviction---Reliance placed on Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652). (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- ---- Contradictory witness statements---Effect---Material contradictions found between the complainant’s statement and those of other prosecution witnesses regarding the timing of the hospital visit and postmortem---Inconsistencies in witness testimonies suggested that the incident was not witnessed by them, but rather reconstructed later to implicate the accused---Dishonest improvements in witness statements cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case---Conviction cannot be sustained where prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements to align their statements with medical evidence or strengthen their case---Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) and Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmad (2017 SCMR 344). (f) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- S. 107---Abetment---Ingredients missing---Court held that for an accused to be convicted of abetment, the prosecution must establish: (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with co-accused, and (iii) intentional aid to the crime---Prosecution failed to prove that the appellant actively facilitated or encouraged the commission of the crime---His mere presence with co-accused at the crime scene did not fulfill the requirements of abetment under S. 107, P.P.C.---Reliance placed on Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600). (g) Criminal trial--- ---- Benefit of the doubt---Rule of prudence---If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the benefit must be given to the accused as a matter of right, not grace---Court reaffirmed that a conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt---In cases where contradictions, delayed FIRs, unreliable witness testimonies, or absence of supporting evidence are present, benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused---Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) and Wazir Muhammad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1134). ----Disposition: Appeal allowed---Conviction and sentence set aside---Appellant acquitted of all charges on account of weak, contradictory, and unreliable prosecution evidence---Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Noor Muhammad v. The State (2010 SCMR 97) Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan (2010 SCMR 105) Iftikhar Hussain v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185) Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428) Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344) Abdul Rahim v. Ali Bux (2017 PCr.LJ 228) Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) Wazir Muhammad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1134)

Summary: (1) A complete & comprehensive procedure of a complaint filed under section 133 Cr.P.C enunciated and highlighted.2) A Court of law or any authority who is seized of any Judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and whose interim order has been challenged before the higher Court/forum shall not stopped the regular proceedings in the main case unless & until such pending proceedings are stayed by the higher forum though a specific & clear order.3) All Judicial forums are constitutionally bound to take the proceeding pending before them to its logical conclusion with full application of mind. -----Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate, Buner. The respondents were acquitted under Section 249-A CrPC in a case registered under Sections 452, 506, 337 L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case stemmed from allegations of criminal intimidation, firing to terrorize the complainant's son, and assaulting the complainant with knives and sticks, resulting in injuries. The dispute arose from a disagreement over cutting trees. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A CrPC was lawful and justified. -----2- Whether the trial court denied due process by failing to record essential prosecution evidence. -----3- Whether the trial court prematurely acquitted the respondents without hearing key witnesses, including the doctor and Investigating Officer. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Premature Acquittal: The trial court entertained the respondents' application under Section 249-A CrPC midway through the trial, acquitting them without recording the statements of crucial prosecution witnesses, including the doctor who examined the injuries and the Investigating Officer. The court’s decision was deemed hasty and contrary to the principles of justice. --Violation of Due Process: Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, was cited. The appellant/complainant was denied the opportunity to fully prosecute his case, as the trial court failed to procure essential evidence. The court emphasized that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor and the court to ensure the attendance of official witnesses for recording their statements. The trial court’s reliance on assumptions and presumptions, without allowing the prosecution to present all its evidence, violated the complainant's fundamental rights. --Role of the Trial Court: The trial court has a responsibility to assess the evidence impartially and not to resort to shortcuts. By failing to record evidence critical to the prosecution’s case, the trial court's decision lacked legal sustainability. --Outcome of the Appeal: The Peshawar High Court observed that the acquittal under Section 249-A CrPC was premature and not in accordance with law. The acquittal order dated 15.07.2021 was set aside, and the case was remanded for completion of the trial after recording the necessary evidence, ensuring compliance with due process. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 249-A CrPC: Provides for acquittal if, at any stage of the case, the evidence presented is insufficient for conviction. The court highlighted that this provision must not be applied prematurely or without recording essential evidence. Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: Recognizes the right to due process and a fair trial as a fundamental right, which was violated in this case.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law – Acquittal Due to Doubtful Prosecution Case: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 336, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—Where prosecution evidence contains glaring contradictions, discrepancies, and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Victim's medical report contradicted her own version of how injuries were sustained—Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and did not align with medical findings—Failure to comply with legal requirements, such as framing a proper charge or confronting the accused with all incriminating evidence under S. 342, Cr.P.C., vitiates the trial—Reliance placed on Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730), Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186), Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374). (b) Contradictory Evidence – Impact on Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164 & 342 – Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 336, 365-B, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on crucial aspects of the case—Victim claimed injuries were inflicted with an iron rod, while medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with a road traffic accident—Witnesses’ statements during trial were at variance with their statements recorded under S. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C.—Failure to confront the accused with all material evidence in his S. 342 statement violated the principles of a fair trial—Benefit of doubt granted to the accused—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428), Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574). (c) Delay in Lodging FIR – Adverse Presumption Against Prosecution: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) FIR lodged 28 hours after the alleged abduction without any plausible explanation—Unexplained delay in FIR registration raises presumption of afterthought, deliberation, and false implication—Delayed FIRs weaken the prosecution case unless properly justified—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428). (d) Independent Witness Requirement – Failure to Associate Neutral Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Failure to associate independent witnesses despite availability casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version—All witnesses were related and interested, with no neutral corroboration—Prosecution’s failure to secure independent testimony supports inference of manipulation—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574), The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408). (e) Safe Administration of Justice – Benefit of Doubt to Accused: ---- Islamic and Common Law Principles of Criminal Justice Burden lies on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt—If contradictions, inconsistencies, or gaps exist in the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused—Islamic principles emphasize that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to punish one innocent—Reliance placed on Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374), Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730). ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted of all charges—Ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730) Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186) Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374) Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574) The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408)

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Sami Ullah and another (petitioners) sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qabza), Swat, dated 14.02.2020, in Cr.MBCA No.45/46-M/2019.The petitioners were implicated in FIR No.62/2019 dated 08.06.2019 under Sections 316/452/337-A(ii), 337 F(iv)/34 PPC registered at Police Station Sheringal, District Dir Upper.The incident involved the petitioners entering the house of the complainant armed with sticks and stones, resulting in injuries to several individuals, one of whom later succumbed to the injuries.---Issues:Whether the Peshawar High Court erred in recalling the trial court's bail order.Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased, not mentioned in the medical report, justified the recall of bail.Whether the principles governing cancellation of bail were appropriately applied.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioners contested the High Court's decision to recall the trial court's bail order, arguing that it lacked legal justification.The High Court's decision was based on the injury sustained by the deceased, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the medical report.The court outlined principles for the cancellation of bail, emphasizing the need for strong and exceptional grounds.It noted the reluctance of superior courts to interfere with bail orders and highlighted the importance of safeguarding liberty.Citing precedent, the court found the recall of bail unjustified and granted leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.The court clarified that its observations were tentative and had no bearing on the trial court proceedings.---Citations/Precedents:Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)SHAHID ARSHAD versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 2 others (1976 SCMR 360)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 354, 449, 452 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, assault or use of criminal force to womanwith intent to outrage her modesty, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault orwrongful restraint---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Complainant asprosecution witness had correctly narrated the story as contained in the FIR and nowhere hewas derailed from his previous deposition---Statements of the most important and starwitnesses, the daughter and widow of the deceased, were similar with each other---Saidwitnesses had correctly identified accused in the Trial Court and correctly stated the date,time, the place of occurrence and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place---Saidwitnesses being dwellers of the house where occurrence took place, their presence in thehouse could not be doubted, rather their presence at the relevant time, was natural---Otherprosecution witness, the neighbourer of the deceased, had also identified the accused in thecourt---All prosecution witnesses were reliable, trustworthy and credible---Identity ofaccused, could not be doubted as prior to the incident, accused remained Buzgar ofdeceased's family---Defence had cross-examined the witnesses at sufficient length, but hadfailed to give any dent or damage to their testimony---Some minor discrepancies in theevidence of prosecution witnesses, were not substantive enough to create reasonable doubt inthe case of prosecution about the involvement and guilt of accused---Recovery of crimeweapon i.e. T.T. Pistol, was effected on the pointation of accused---Accused had confessedhis guilt by disclosing the names of absconding accused persons who persuaded him forcommitting the murder of deceased---Case of prosecution, had further been strengthened bythe confessional statement of accused under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Such statement was recordedwithout any coercion, pressure, torture or blackmailing---No reason existed to disagree ordisbelieve such confessional statement---Plea of 'alibi' taken by accused, was not of worthcredence---Prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against accused through direct,circumstantial and medical evidence---No major contradiction or dishonest improvement hadbeen pointed out by the defence---Accused, throughout the proceedings, had not taken anyspecific plea with regard to his false implication, nor he had brought any ill-will or ulteriormotives for his false implication by the witnesses---Trial Court had discussed and dilatedupon each and every aspect of the case and rightly convicted accused.Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 and Hashim Qasim v. The State2017 SCMR 986 ref.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Awarding of capital punishment---Eight accused personsincluding the accused had been booked in the crime and except accused, all accused personswere absconding; their pleas were yet to be brought on record---Accused, his two sons andtwo other absconding accused persons, being armed with Kalashnikov and T.T. pistol hadmade indiscriminate firing upon the deceased, but the fact remained that the deceased hadonly received two bullet injuries and it was not certain that whose bullet hit the deceased---Awarding of capital punishment to accused was unwarranted, in circumstances---Whileupholding the conviction of accused, his sentence of death was converted into rigorousimprisonment for life---Amount of compensation and remaining sentence of accused weremaintained with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(2)---Bail---Further inquiry---Scope--- Petitioner was not nominated in FIR and was later implicated through a supplementary statement by a witness who had not directly witnessed the incident---No specific role attributed to petitioner except general and belated accusation---Petitioner behind bars since 10.09.2015 with no direct evidence linking recovered firearm to the murder---Held, case against petitioner was one of further inquiry attracting S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., particularly when co-accused with more specific allegations had already been granted bail---Prosecution evidence yet to be tested at trial and recovery did not conclusively connect petitioner with the offence---Bail granted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 302, 324, 452, 148, 149, 109, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) to 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 120-B, 201---Multiple accused---FIR and supplementary statement---Specific and general roles--- While FIR named and detailed specific overt acts of certain accused, the petitioner was not initially nominated nor was any distinct role attributed to him---His implication came only via a supplementary statement by a non-eyewitness at a much later stage---Held, in absence of direct role and in light of already granted bail to co-accused, further incarceration of petitioner without conclusion of trial would amount to pre-trial punishment. (c) Precedents---Grant of bail despite pendency of trial--- Reliance placed on Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v. The State (2014 SCMR 12), wherein it was held that mere commencement of trial is not a bar to bail if further inquiry is warranted---Also followed Havaas Khan v. The State (2014 YLR 2532), affirming that bail cannot be withheld solely due to the heinous nature of offence if accused qualifies otherwise. (d) Bail---Recovery of weapon---No forensic linkage---Effect--- 12-bore repeater was recovered from petitioner but no evidence showed it was used in the commission of the offence---Held, mere recovery without ballistic connection to the crime scene insufficient to justify continued detention. ----Disposition: Bail granted---Petitioner directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.100,000 with one surety to satisfaction of trial court.