Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail Before Arrest --- Pre-Arrest Bail --- Maintainability --- Instant petition has been filed by Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioners) against impugned order dated 23.04.2025, in Crl. Misc. No.14086-B of 2025, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore with prayer to set-aside said order and grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners in case FIR No.160/2025, dated 28.01.2025, offences under Sections 324/337A(iii)/337A(ii)/337F(ii)/148/149 PPC, registered at police station Zafarwal, District Narowal --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- It is evident from perusal of order dated 23.06.2025, of this Court that instant petition has already been partially dismissed to extent of Muhammad Sajid (Muhammad Sajid Iqbal) petitioner No.1, on account of his arrest --- Insofar as case of Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively), is concerned, we have noted that as per contents of FIR, Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), was assigned role of inflicting wooden 'bala' on forehead of Younas PW, whereas Ali Raza petitioner No.3, has been assigned role of inflicting hatchet blow on back side of head of Sufiyan PW --- Injuries attributed to both petitioners were declared by concerned Medical Officer to be punishable under section 337A (ii) PPC --- During investigation, it was concluded by Investigating Officer that Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), was merely present at spot and he did not cause any injury on any member of complainant party --- Said findings of Investigating Officer have made prosecution case as one of further inquiry entitling Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), to relief of pre-arrest bail as observed in judgments reported as 'Ehsan Ullah v. The State" (2012 SCMR 70) and 'Muhammad Ishaq v. The State and others' (2012 SCMR 1137) --- So far as Ali Raza (petitioner No.3), is concerned, we have noted that in medico legal report of Sufiyan PW, Medical Officer has mentioned injury on his head as skin deep --- Section 337A(ii) PPC, is attracted when bone under injury is exposed but it is evident from perusal of medico legal report of Sufiyan PW that no such finding regarding exposing bone of head of Sufiyan PW was mentioned in report rather it was categorically mentioned that injury on head of Sufiyan PW was skin deep, hence offence under section 337A(i) PPC, which is bailable offence, is attracted instead of section 337A(ii) PPC, to extent of abovementioned injury entitling Ali Raza (petitioner No.3), to grant of pre-arrest bail --- Reference in this context may be made to judgment reported as "Muhammad Qasim and another v. The State and others" (PLD 2014 Lahore 555) --- We have also noted that sixteen (16) named and 4/5 unknown accused persons total 20/21 accused persons have been implicated in this case by complainant, therefore, possibility of malafide involvement of petitioners in this case by complainant while using wider-net cannot be ruled out at this stage --- In light of above discussion, this petition is converted into appeal and same is partly allowed --- Consequently, impugned order is set-aside to extent of Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively) --- Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively), vide order dated 23.06.2025, is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing of fresh bail bonds in sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail After Arrest --- Post-Arrest Bail --- Maintainability --- This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal is filed by Binyameen against impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby his application for post-arrest bail was dismissed --- Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. 123 dated 15.03.2025 under Sections 302, 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 PPC registered at police station Mardan City, District Mardan --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- As per contents of FIR, occurrence took place on 15.03.2025 at about 8.00 p.m in area of Mardan City where petitioner along with other co-accused persons allegedly committed murder of deceased and caused injuries to complainant party --- Petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case --- He further argued that there are material contradictions in prosecution evidence and case against petitioner is based on weak evidence --- He also submitted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name surfaced during investigation --- Learned counsel further argued that petitioner has been in custody for more than five months and trial is not likely to conclude in near future --- He also submitted that petitioner is not a flight risk and will not tamper with prosecution evidence --- Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa opposed bail application and argued that petitioner is involved in heinous offence of murder --- He further argued that there is sufficient evidence against petitioner to connect him with commission of offence --- He also submitted that if released on bail, petitioner may abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence --- After perusal of record and hearing arguments, we find that petitioner is facing trial for serious offences including murder --- However, we have noted that petitioner has been in custody for more than five months and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial --- We have also noted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name surfaced during investigation --- There are also some contradictions in prosecution evidence which need to be tested during trial --- In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that petitioner deserves relief of post-arrest bail --- Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed --- Impugned order is set aside --- Petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petitioner shall also appear before Trial Court on each date of hearing and shall not leave jurisdiction of Trial Court without prior permission --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (Against the orders dated 24.06.2025 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2147-B, 2149-B, 2150-B, 2151-B, 2153-B of 2025, 2155-B, 2152-B and 2148-B of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 320, 324, 337-A, 337-F, 337-L , 353, 354, 395, 436, 506-B, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 188 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, shajjah, ghayr-jaifah, other hurt, assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant, outraging modesty of woman, dacoity, criminal intimidation, damage to property, criminal conspiracy, waging war, disobedience of order by public servant and causing disappearance of evidence---Bail, grant of---Principle of consistency---Applicability---Plea raised by accused was that co-accused persons had already been released on bail---Validity---Material brought on record regarding alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to accused required further scrutiny and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during trial---In view of the principle of consistency, other similarly placed accused persons were granted bail by Supreme Court---Bail was allowed. Salman Safdar, Advocate Supreme Court and Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Mazhar Ali Haider, Advocate for Petitioner (in all cases). Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Special Prosecutor, Punjab assisted by Mudassar Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Javaid Asif, DSP, Mumtaz Kakar, Inspector, Afzal Sandhu, Inspector, M. Ashraf, Inspector and Alam Langrial, Inspector for the State (in all cases). Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab on Court's call. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. ORDER YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ.--- Through these petitions, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi (the "petitioner") has sought leave to appeal against the orders dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. Nos. 2147-B, 2149-B, 2150-B, 2151-B, 2153-B, 2155-B, 2152- B and 2148-B of 2025, whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in case FIR Nos. 852, 768, 1570, 103, 109, 1271, 108 and 96 registered at different Police Stations Race Course, Shadman, Mughalpura, Sarwar Road and Gulberg of District Lahore on 10.05.2023, 11.05.2023, 12.05.2023 and 13.05.2023 ('FIRs') in respect of offences under sections 302, 324, 395, 436, 452, 440, 427, 353, 354, 391, 186, 290, 291, 153, 152, 148, 149, 147, 109, 505, 506-B, 120, 120-B, 225-B, 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-A(iii), 336, 449, 153-A, 153-B, 146, 131, 121-A, 121, 188, 201 and 34 P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and section 11-B of Arms Ordinance, 1965. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The main thrust of the prosecution revolves around the allegation that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy for the commission of the offences mentioned in the FIRs. To this end, the learned Special Prosecutor drew the attention of the Court to the ocular statements of three witnesses, as well as electronic media, and argued that these clearly implicate the petitioner and connect him with the commission of the alleged offences. 4. When confronted with the grant of bail rendered by this Court to Mr. Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Mr. Imtiaz Mehmood, and Mr. Hafiz Farhat Abbas, who were linked to the same occurrence and charged similarly to the present petitioner, the learned Special Prosecutor responded that the case of the present petitioner was clearly distinguishable and, therefore, the principle of consistency would not apply in the instant bail matters. 5. Further, when the learned Special Prosecutor was confronted with the definite findings regarding the merits of the case recorded in the impugned order refusing bail to the present petitioner, he explained that it is by now settled that the findings so recorded in a bail granting order are tentative in nature, to be restricted only to the proceedings of bail and are not considered during the trial of an accused. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned Special Prosecutor. In particular, he emphasized that the principle of consistency had to be applied in favour of the petitioner, as all three accused, namely, Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mahmood, and Hafiz Farhat Abbas, were charged with alleged criminal conspiracy, and thus the case of the petitioner would surely fall within the domain of parity, which had to be positively considered in favour of the present petitioner. He further explained that the cases of the present petitioner were on a better footing, in particular, than that of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, who had been granted bail by this Court. He pointed out that in the case of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry, the investigation had been completed and the trial had commenced, whereas in the case of the present petitioner those stages had not yet been reached, and thus, his entitlement to bail is comparatively stronger. 7. This Court has noted that the definite findings recorded by the learned High Court in the impugned order, which go to the very root of the contested claims of the parties. However, without passing any findings on the legality and veracity of the said findings, our concern at this stage is confined only to the fact that such findings have been recorded at the stage of bail. 8. Let this Court pass any findings on the merits of the case which may prejudice either party at trial, it is sufficient to state that the material brought on record regarding the alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to the petitioner requires scrutiny, and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during the trial. In addition thereto, the case of the petitioner has to be positively considered in view of the principle of consistency, as others similarly placed have been granted bail by this Court. 9. In view of the above, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The petitioner is granted post-arrest bail in the above mentioned cases, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court in each case. MH/I-14/SC Bail allowed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 10-hours and 20-minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the unfortunate occurrence, whereby the deceased lost his life and two persons were injured, took place at or about 08:30 am on 01.08.2020 while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 06:50 pm, with an inordinate delay of about 10 hours and 20 minutes despite the police station being merely 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence---In column No. 3 of the inquest report, the date and time when police got information about the death was scribed as 01.08.2020 at 08:30 a.m.---Such belated lodging of the crime report shattered the sanctity of the same and reflected that the time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story---No plausible justification or adequate explanation was furnished by the prosecution for that delay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 13 hours and 45 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---It was evinced from the perusal of the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased, that the dead body was received in the dead house at 10:00 am on 01.08.2020, whereas complete documents from Police were also received at 10:00 pm on 01.08.2020---Medical Officer conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 10:15 p.m., after a lapse of 13 hours and 45 minutes---Medical Officer admitted in his cross-examination that he received the written application to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased by the police at 10.00 pm---Prosecutor and complainant were unable to point any justifiable reason for the said delay from the entire record---Such unexplained delay in the Post-Mortem Examination of a deceased would surely put a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously access and scrutinize the prosecution's evidence---In such circumstances, the most natural inference would be that the delay so caused was for preliminary investigation and prior consultation to nominate the accused persons and plant eye-witnesses of the crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Discrepancies in the prosecution case---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---As per record, acquitted co-accused "W" fired with his Kalashnikov at the already fallen deceased, striking him on the left side of his back, on the middle of his back, and on the backside of his left shoulder and the right side of his back---All those injuries inflicted by said acquitted co-accused were declared fatal shots by Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy of the deceased---Said acquitted co-accused repeatedly fired his rifle at one of the injured persons, hitting him near the umbilicus and on his right ribs---Said injured in his examination-in-chief had not assigned any role to said acquitted co-accused "W" of causing any firearm injury to the deceased and consequently the Trial Court acquitted him of the charge---Likewise to the extent of acquitted co-accused "W", whose attribution of injuries was substituted by the complainant in paragraph No. 4 of the private complaint, such discrepancies were detrimental to the prosecution's case, primarily affecting the credibility of the evidence presented---Appellants' case was grounded on the same evidence and the roles assigned to them were similar to those of the co-accused who were acquitted---Sudden shift in the Court's findings, based on essentially the same facts, coupled with the modifications in the verdict, compelled to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution to the extent of present appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the statement of the injured witnesses were recorded by First Investigating Officer on 03.08.2020, two days after the lodging of FIR and on 04.08.2020, three days after the lodging of FIR, respectively---Said material aspect of the prosecution's case regarding the delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., not only diminished the evidentiary value of their statements but also raised a reasonable doubt concerning the mode of injuries they received, especially when their Medico Legal Examination Certificate showed that they were conscious at the time of admission in the THQ Hospital---Unexplained delay of one or two days in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would be detrimental and testimony of such witnesses should be taken with a pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of three months and 29 days in filing the complaint---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the complainant of the case being dissatisfied with the police investigation, while changing the prosecution version, filed a private complaint on 30.11.2020 with the delay of almost 03 months and 29 days of the occurrence---Complainant had not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning that the private complaint had been filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others PLD 2003 SC 14 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Ipse dixit of police---Scope---Ipse dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts, yet it can be considered if it is found on some cogent and convincing evidence. Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 and Sajjad Hussain v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1540 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant at the spot not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---According to the prosecution's account, the complainant of the case, along with his companions, allegedly escorted the deceased and the injured persons to the Civil Hospital---However, complainant was not listed as a witness of the identification of the dead body in the inquest report---Furthermore, if complainant was present at the hospital, the question aroseas to why he did not identify deceased's dead body at the time of the Post-Mortem Examination---Such inconsistency led to conclude that the complainant was not present at the time and place of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recoveries of crime weapons on the disclosure of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the appellants were arrested on 26.08.2020, who led to the recoveries on the basis of disclosures made by them on 07.09.2020---As per record, from one appellant, a 223-bore rifle along with four live bullets was recovered from another appellant, 222-bore rifle along with two live bullets was recovered from another appellant, rifle along with three live bullets was recovered; and a rifle along with five live bullets were recovered from acquitted accused, which were deposited to the office of Forensic Science Agency on 14.09.2020 for comparison with the crime empties already secured from the place of occurrence---Firearm and Toolmarks Examination Report in that regard was negative---Consequently, the evidentiary value of those recoveries remained inconclusive and could not be regarded as substantive proof---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Prosecution specifically alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a previous enmity between the parties---Alleged motive rested solely on the oral assertion of the complainant as no corroborative evidence was presented by the prosecution to substantiate its claim---Prosecution is not obligated to prove motive in every murder case but it is equally established that once the prosecution sets up a specific motive, it assums the burden of proving it---Failure to discharge that burden operates to the detriment of the prosecution, not the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Muhammad Mushtaq Chaudhry, Iftikhar Ahmad Bittu, Irfan Riaz Gondal, Ch. Zulfiqar Abrar, Mustansar Nazar Ghagh and Mohsin Raza Bhatti for Appellants. Ijaz Ahmad Pannu, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Barrister Salaman Safdar, Barrister Hamza Shehram Sarwar and Asad Zaman Tarrar for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th May, 2025. judgment Muhammad Jawad Zafar, J .--- Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 80283 of 2022 filed by Khitab Ullah, Muhammad Azhar, Muhammad Asif, Shahzad Mehmood and Muhammad Amir against their convictions and sentences, Criminal P.S.L.A. No. 80831 of 2022 filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case (PW-3) and Criminal Revision No. 80810 of 2022 filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case (PW-3) for enhancement of sentence, whereas Murder Reference No. 321 of 2022 has also been transmitted by learned Trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentences of Khitab Ullah and Muhammad Azhar, appellants under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Code" or "Cr.P.C"), all the matters being originated from the same judgment dated 12.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala ("Trial Court") in the private complaint (Exh.PC) under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 and 149 P.P.C emanated from case FIR No.664 dated 01.08.2020, under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149 P.P.C registered at Police Station Tatlay Aali, Gujranwala whereby, at the conclusion of the trial in the said case, the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the co-accused persons Muhammad Waris and Waseem Nasar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Khitab Ullah son of Muhammad Waris:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to death as ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced to ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Azhar son of Mehmood Ahmad:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to death as ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000 in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Asif son of Riasat Ali: ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Shahzad Mehmood son of Mehmood Ahmad:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Amir son of Amanat Ali:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is extended in favour of the accused persons. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the Trial Court reads as under: "On 01.08.2020 at 07:00 am, the complainant (Pw.3) along with Muhammad Arshad brother (since given up), Muhammad Hashim son of Muhammad Arshad (injured Pw.4), Muhammad Amir (deceased), Muhammad (injured Pw.5) both sons of Qamar, Hamza Mukhtar (Pw.6) son of complainant, went to Eid-Gaah situated on the north-western side of the village to offer Eid-Prayer. People from the village including Muhammad Waris (accused) along with his relatives were also present there for Eid-Prayer. After Eid-Prayer, at about 07:45 am, Muhammad Waris along with his relatives went to the village, whereas, the complainant party went to the graveyard, adjacent to the Eid-Gaah, to offer Fateh-Khawani for their deceased persons. After Fatch-Khawant, the complainant party left the graveyard and were going towards the village. Muhammad Nadeem (injured Pw.5) was boarded on his motorcycle GAL-8550, Honda 125, Model 2020 (PS), Muhammad Hashim (injured Pw.4) and Muhammad Amir (deceased) were boarded on motorcycle Metro 70-CC (P-6) Model 2020, Applied for. Amir was driving the motorcycle, while Hashim sitting on its rear seat, were going slowly towards the village, ahead of the complainant, Arshad and Hamza Mukhtar who were following them on foot. When, at about 08:30 am, the complainant party reached near the house of Kashif son of Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Waris armed with kalashnikov, Muhammad Asif armed with kalashnikov, Khitabullah armed with kalashnikov, Azhar Mehmood armed with rifle, Shahzad armed with rifle, Amir armed with rifle and Waseem armed with rifle, all present in court with their mutual consultation, already present at the old DERA of Muhammad Waris, suddenly, emerged from there on the mettled road and blocked their passage. Accused Muhammad Waris raised a lalkara not to let Muhammad Amir and others alive. On this, Khitabullah made a straight burst with his kalashnikov to Amir which hit him on left side of his neck, on the different parts of his chest and on the left side of his face. Amir fell down from his motorcycle. Muhammad Waris made a burst with his kalashnikov on the person of Muhammad Amir who was already fallen on the ground which hit on left side of Amir's back, on the middle of his back, on the back side of his left shoulder and on the right side of his back. Azhar son of Mehmood made repeated fire shots with his rifle which hit on the right side of abdomen of Amir and on his left flank. Shahzad son of Mehmood made a fire shot with his rifle which hit on the front of right thigh of Hashim. Muhammad Amir son of Amanat made a fire shot with his rifle which hit on the-front of Hashim's left thigh. Waseem son of Nasar made repeated fire shots with his rifle on the person of Muhammad Nadeem which hit on his belly near his hila and on his right ribs. Accused Muhammad Asif son of Riasat Ali made fires with his firearm weapon on the person of Muhammad Nadeem which hit on his left arm, right thigh and left leg. Accused persons while making firing and raising lalkaras fled away from the spot. The complainant along with his companions took Muhammad Nadeem, Hashim and Amir to the civil hospital Nowshera Virkan on two private vehicles. Muhammad Amir succumbed to the injuries on the way. Besides the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Nadeem (injured/PW.5), Hashim (injured/PW.6). Hamza Mukhtar (Pw.6) and Muhammad Arshad. The complainant along with Hamza Mukhtar and Muhammad Arshad witnessed the occurrence while taking shelter of the street and saved their lives. Motive behind the occurrence is their previous enmity with accused Muhammad Waris and others due to which they omitted the occurrence. While leaving Abdul Aziz and Mehboob am with the dead body of Amir, the complainant went to P.S Tat lay Aali, for registration of FIR......" 3. After recording cursory statements of the complainant and PWs, the appellants and acquitted co-accused were summoned to face trial. Learned trial court, after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, framed charge under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F3, 337-F6, 148 and 149 P.P.C against the appellants along with their acquitted co-accused on 18.06.2021, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 16 PWs and 03 witnesses were examined as CWs. Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case, testified as PW-3; Muhammad Hashim, injured witness, appeared as PW-4; Muhammad Nadeem, injured witness, deposed as PW-5; Hamza Mukhtar, eye-witness of the occurrence, testified as PW-6; Naveed Akhtar ASI who registered the FIR (Exh.PA/1) through computer operator on the basis of written complaint (Exh.PA) submitted by the complainant (PW-3) appeared as PW-1; Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema, medical officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of Muhammad Amir, deceased, at THQ hospital Nowshera Virkan and issued his postmortem report (Exh.PP) with pictorial diagrams comprising of two pages (Exh.PQ/1-2) appeared as PW-8; Adeel Ahmad 1929/C, recovery witness of 223-bore rifle (P.10) along with four live rounds (P.11/1-4) which were taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PV), appeared as PW-9; Ibrar Ahmad JFS, who collected eighteen cartridge cases and three deformed bullets from the place of occurrence, appeared as PW-10; Zahid 128/C, being witness of recovery proceedings, attested recovery memos (Exh.PD and Exh.PE) containing blood stained clothes of injured PWs (P1-P4) and attested the recovery memo (Exh.PL) containing lead bullet along with last worn clothes of the deceased (P7-P9), appeared as PW-11; Muhammad Awais 2754/C, the recovery witness of rifle 222-bore (P.12) along with two live bullets (P.13/1-2) taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PW) appeared as PW-12; Muhammad Khalid SI, who collected 13 crime empties of kalashnikov and one crime empty of rifle 222-bore from the crime scene and presented the same to Javed Chaudhary SI, first investigating officer of the case (CW-2), appeared as PW-13; Ahsanullah 2762/C, witness of recovery proceedings, who attested the recovery memo (Exh.PX) regarding the recovery of rifle (P.14) along with three live rounds (P.15/1-3) from the possession of accused Shahzad by the I.O appeared as PW-15; Ikramullah 3899/C, being witness of recovery proceedings, he attested the recovery memo (Exh.PY) regarding the recovery of rifle 223-bore (P.16) along with five live bullets (P.17/1-5) from the possession of the accused Waseem Nasar by the I.O, appeared as PW-16; Tariq Mehmood SI, second investigation officer, appeared as CW-1; Javed Chaudhary, first investigation officer, appeared as CW-2 and Akhlaq Ahmad ASI who prepared injury statements (Exh.PS and Exh.PU) regarding the injuries on the persons of injured PWs Muhammad Nadeem (PW-5) and Muhammad Hashim (PW-4) appeared as CW-3. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution were formal in nature. The prosecution gave up Zufiqar Ali 69/C PW and Ijaz Ahmad 291/C PW being unnecessary and after tendering the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore ("PFSA") (Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis Report (Exh.PAA), Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PBB) and Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PCC)) closed its evidence. 4. Thereafter the statements of the appellants and their co-accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. The appellants neither opted to appear as their own witnesses on oath as provided under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in disproof of the allegation levelled against them, nor produced any defence evidence except accused Muhammad Waris, who tendered attested copy of FIR No.50/04, dated 18.02.2004, under section 302 P.P.C, P.S Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala (Exh.DJ) and attested copy of FIR No.335/05, under sections 302, 429, 148 and 149 P.P.C read with sections 6 and 7 ATA, dated 04.05.2005, P.S Satellite Town, Gujranwala (Exh.DK) as his defence evidence. 5. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.11.2022 found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, however, acquitted their co-accused namely Muhammad Waris and Waseem Nasar through the same judgment by extending them the benefit of doubt, hence, the Criminal Appeal, Criminal P.S.L.A., Criminal Revision and connected Murder Reference before us. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant meticulously and also scanned the record minutely with their able assistance. 7. It emerges from wade through the record that the unfortunate occurrence, whereby the deceased namely Amir lost his life, Muhammad Hashim (PW-4) and Muhammad Nadeem (PW-5) were injured, took place at or about 08:30 am on 01.08.2020 while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 06:50 pm, with an inordinate delay of about 10 hours and 20 minutes despite the police station being merely 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. According to column No. 3 of the inquest report (Exh.PN), the date and time when police got information about the death is scribed as 01.08.2020 at 08:30 am. Such belated lodging of the Crime Report (Exh.PA/1) shatters the sanctity of the same and reflects that the time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story, as no plausible justification or adequate explanation is furnished by the prosecution for this delay. 8. Along the same lines, it evinces from the perusal of the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased (Exh.PP), the dead body was received in the dead house at 10:00 am on 01.08.2020, whereas complete documents from Police were also received at 10:00 pm on 01.08.2020. Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema (PW-8) conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 10:15 p.m., after a lapse of 13 hours and 45 minutes. He admitted in his cross-examination that he received the written application (Exh.PO) to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased by the police at 10.00 pm. The relevant excerpt of his cross-examination is infra: "I conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Amir on the written application (Ex.PO) su

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Post-arrest bail---Grant of leave to appeal---Petitioner challenged High Court’s refusal to grant post-arrest bail in murder case---Occurrence involved cross-versions lodged by both parties regarding same incident---Supreme Court held that in cases involving cross-versions, bail is granted as a rule on the ground of further inquiry, while refusal is an exception---Prima facie both versions were antithetical, arising from the same transaction involving common date, time, location, motive, and parties---Determination of the actual aggressor requires recording of evidence at trial, thus entitling petitioner to bail---Petition converted into appeal and allowed accordingly---Petitioner granted post-arrest bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Cross-version cases---Scope and principle---Where counter-versions exist in respect of same occurrence, it is a settled principle that bail should ordinarily be granted because the question of aggressor or aggressed party is to be determined during trial upon appreciation of evidence---Mere number or severity of injuries cannot conclusively determine liability at bail stage---Denial of bail in such cases constitutes an exception---Prolonged incarceration without substantial progress of trial strengthens the case for bail on constitutional grounds of fair and expeditious trial. Cited Cases: • Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed (1976 SCMR 391) • Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali (1972 SCMR 682) • Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool (2013 SCMR 1415) • Khizar Hayat v. The State (2024 SCMR 1605)

Summary: (Against the order dated 28.02.2025 in Crl. Misc. No. 613-B of 2024, passed by the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, munaqqilah, causin hurt, common intention---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the petitioner was that he along with co-accused caused fracture on the little finger of the complainant by giving blows with a wheel spanner---Legally speaking, out of the offences with which the petitioner was charged, Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(i) and 337-L(2), P.P.C., were bailable and in such like offences bail was a right, whereas, punishment of the offence under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and in such like offences grant of bail was a rule and refusal thereof an exception---In such view of the matter, if petitioner was denied the extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, he would nonetheless be entitled to post-arrest bail, considering the nature and extent of the punishment prescribed for the offences with which he stood charged---Once the Court concluded that the accused would become entitled to post-arrest bail upon dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application, then requiring him to undergo incarceration would be a mere procedural formality devoid of any meaningful purpose---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was granted pre-arrest bail. Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State PLD 2017 SC 730; Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380 and Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through PG Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130 rel. Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Tariq Siddique, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for the State. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2025.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Pre-arrest bail---Grant of leave to appeal---Petitioner sought leave against High Court order declining pre-arrest bail in offences under Sections 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), and 34, P.P.C.---Supreme Court held that offences under Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(i), and 337-L(2), P.P.C. are bailable, while the offence under Section 337-F(vi), P.P.C., although non-bailable, does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail, therefore, was a rule and refusal an exception---Petitioner would otherwise be entitled to post-arrest bail, thus, no meaningful purpose would be served by requiring his incarceration merely to satisfy procedural formality---Petition converted into appeal and allowed accordingly---Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497 & 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope and principle---Where offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception---Court reiterated that where an accused has a strong case for post-arrest bail, denial of pre-arrest bail would be unjustified and would merely result in unnecessary incarceration---Court emphasized that meaningful administration of justice requires avoiding mechanical detention when entitlement to bail is apparent from record. Cited Cases: • Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) • Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380) • Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through PG Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130)

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), 147, 148 & 149---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, ghair jaifah hashimah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he committed murder of the uncle of complainant and caused injuries to other persons---Undisputed fact that the role attributed to the present petitioner as well as to the co-accused,etc., to whom bail had already been granted by the Supreme Court was identical---Admitted fact that it was the plea of the present petitioner as well as of the co-accused in earlier round that it was a case of cross version, however, High Court did not appreciate the same in their favor, however, when the same plea was agitated by co-accused, etc., before the Supreme Court, the same was appreciated in their favor and they were granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2024---Therefore, when at the time of hearing of the earlier bail petition of the petitioner by this Court on 08.10.2024, the ground for grant of bail on the principle of consistency was not available to the accused/ petitioner and it was much thereafter on 16.12.2024 when the said ground had been made available to the petitioner, therefore, such ground could be considered as a fresh ground for the grant of bail---Thus, it might be reiterated that such ground was always considered as a fresh ground, which was not available to the petitioner in the earlier round---If a ground was available in the earlier round and the same had not been taken in the earlier round, then such ground could not be considered as a fresh ground, however, in the present case, the situation was altogether different as the fresh ground i.e., the principle of consistency, was not available to the present petitioner in the earlier round, therefore, the bail application on the fresh ground was maintainable and thus the ground of principle of consistency could be considered for grant of bail to the accused/ petitioner---When the role of the present petitioner and that of co-accused,etc., was identical besides they were charged in the same FIR and when the instant incident had been held as one of cross version by the Supreme Court while granting bail to co-accused, etc., then the present petitioner was also entitled for the same benefit---In that view of the matter, the petitioner's case could not be treated differently and hence, on the basis of the rule of consistency, it would also be relevant to mention here that one of the co-accused had also approached this Court for grant of bail when by then the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2024 was in field and this Court had granted bail to said accused on the ground, which prevailed with the Supreme Court, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the present accused/ petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Abid v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 907 rel. Razaullah for Petitioner. Haq Nawaz Khan, A.A.G for the State. Asghar Ali for Respondents Nos. 2 to 10. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Benefit of doubt—Failure to prove identification and arrest at scene—Conviction set aside—S. 7(i)(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Ss. 302(b), 449, 324, 353, 186, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 337 PPC—Ss. 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908—S. 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965—Petitioners were convicted and sentenced under multiple provisions including death and life imprisonment—Held, petitioners were not named in FIR or initial police reports, nor identified by any eyewitness including complainant or management of worship place—Star witness (Name withheld) did not appear, and other cited eyewitnesses failed to testify—Claim of arrest at scene contradicted by record—Held, serious doubts in prosecution’s version warranted benefit of doubt—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230).(b) Criminal trial—Unreliable ocular testimony—Witness not named in FIR or site plan—Declared hostile by prosecution—PW-13 Inspector (name withheld), claimed to witness arrest and recovery but was not mentioned in FIR, site plan, or police narrative—Prosecution itself sought to declare him hostile—No other witness corroborated his presence or version—Held, evidence of witness not cited in FIR or shown present at scene is not trustworthy—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Criminal trial—Contradictory recovery evidence—Recovery of suicide vests and ammunition—Doubtful presence of recovery witnesses—PW-12 and PW-16 claimed recoveries but failed to corroborate each other’s presence or involvement—PW-16 admitted rough site plan was made on his pointation despite not witnessing occurrence—Held, inconsistencies in recovery evidence undermine prosecution case—No credible evidence on actual recovery process.(d) Criminal trial—Failure to produce medico-legal report—Injury fabrication—Adverse inference against prosecution—Investigating Officer claimed one petitioner was injured and treated at Jinnah Hospital, but no MLR was produced—Prosecution failed to call Medical Officer—Held, failure to produce best possible evidence warrants adverse inference under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984—Petitioner’s version of illegal detention and torture found plausible—Reliance placed on Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846), Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846), Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146), and Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224).(e) Expert testimony—Lack of qualification—Bomb Disposal witness not a chemical expert—No evidentiary value—Bomb Disposal Commander (PW-7) admitted lacking qualifications in chemical analysis—Held, opinion of non-qualified expert not admissible to support explosive-related charges.(f) Criminal trial—Prosecution failure—Principle of benefit of doubt—Multiple material discrepancies including lack of direct evidence, unreliable recoveries, failure to produce key medical and forensic reports, and unqualified expert testimony—Held, case replete with doubts; conviction not sustainable—Petitioners acquitted while extending benefit of doubt.Disposition: Petitions converted to appeals and allowed—Impugned convictions and sentences set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case.Cited Cases:• Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)• Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)• Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490)• Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846)• Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846)• Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146)• Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224)

Summary: (a) Criminal Law: --- Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 452 --- Murder, attempted murder, trespass --- Commutation of death sentence --- The appellant was convicted for Qatl-e-Amd (murder) under Section 302(b) PPC on three counts for the murder of two women and an unborn child and was sentenced to death on all three counts. Additionally, he was convicted under Sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), and 452 PPC for causing injuries to two other individuals and for trespassing. The trial court's conviction was upheld by the High Court. Held, while the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the two murders and the injuries, the conviction for the death of the unborn child was set aside due to the non-framing of a charge for this distinct offence. The omission to frame a charge under Section 233 Cr.P.C. rendered the trial defective for this count, violating the fundamental right to a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction for the unborn child's death was set aside. Further, considering mitigating factors, including the absence of premeditation and the failure to prove motive, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. (b) Criminal Procedure: --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 221-240, 342 --- Right to fair trial --- Defective charge framing --- Impact on conviction --- A separate charge must be framed for each distinct offence under Sections 221-240 Cr.P.C.. The failure to frame a charge for the alleged murder of the unborn child deprived the accused of a proper opportunity to defend himself, constituting a substantial illegality that vitiated the trial in respect of that count. Held, a person cannot be convicted for an offence for which they were not charged. The prosecution's failure to frame a charge violated the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, necessitating the setting aside of the conviction for the unborn child’s death. (c) Constitutional Law: --- Art. 10-A --- Right to a fair trial --- Due process in criminal trials --- The right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, requires that an accused be made fully aware of the charges against them and be given an opportunity to present a defense. Held, failing to frame a charge for the unborn child's death and not confronting the accused with the specific allegation under Section 342 Cr.P.C. amounted to a denial of this constitutional guarantee, rendering the conviction unsustainable. (d) Sentencing: --- Murder trial --- Commutation of death sentence --- Consideration of mitigating factors --- The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment due to the presence of mitigating factors, including the absence of premeditation, the failure to prove motive, and the circumstances suggesting a sudden altercation rather than a planned murder. Held, courts must ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the circumstances of the offence, and where reasonable doubt exists regarding premeditation, capital punishment should not be imposed. The principle that an unsubstantiated motive benefits the accused was reaffirmed. (e) Disposition: Appeal partly allowed. Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Conviction for the unborn child’s death set aside. Other sentences remain unchanged.