Summary: Bail granted ----Post Arrest Bail in FIR No. 288/2021 dated 18.03.2021 U/s 392 PPC P.S. Tarnol, Islamabad ---- Honorable Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir while authoring the "Abbas Khan Vs State" (2023 PCrlj 549 ISB) distinguished the law on statutory bail as held by August Supreme Court in "Shakeel Shah Vs State" (2022 SCMR 1). Honorable Judge elaborates the yardstick for measuring the desperateness of an accused while deciding the bail under statutory right. "The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to the extent it decides a question of law or enunciates a principle of law, is binding on all other courts of the country including the High Courts, under the mandate of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Office is, therefore, directed to transmit copy of this order to the learned Member InspectionTeam (MIT) for its circulation amongst the learned Presiding Officers of both the Sessions Divisions (East and West) of ICT for taking guidance from the principle in by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakeel Shah supra." ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411---Robbery- --Bail, grant of---Statutory ground of delay---In the present case, Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial was, available to the accused after lapse of one year-- -Proceedings conducted subsequent to framing of the charge revealed that on most of the dates of hearing, the prosecution witnesses were absent while on two occasions the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, delay in conclusion of trial was not occasioned by any act or omission on the part of the accused---Though the accused appeared to be a habitual offender as being involved in other cases of like nature, yet the fact remained that he retained no conviction in them---Except few cases registered in the year 2021 under S. 392, P.P.C., there was no record of involvement of accused in like cases previously i.e. prior to the year 2021--- Continuous detention, of accused for more than a year without any material or even remote progress in conclusion of trial, brought his case within the ambit of third proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused was, therefore, held entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Accused was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances. Shakeel Shah v. The State 2022 SCMR 1; Javed Khan v. The State 2022 YLR 1655 and Muhammad Tanvir v. The State and another 2022 MLD 278 ref. -------- (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 189---Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other Courts---Applicability- --Decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to the extent it decides a question of law or enunciates a principle of law, was binding on all other courts of the country including the High Courts.

Summary: (Bail Allowed) The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 394/302/411/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the Mangamandi Police Station, Lahore. The petitioner argues that granting bail is essential for the fair administration of criminal justice. According to the prosecution's version of events mentioned in the crime report, two brothers of the complainant were robbed at gunpoint while traveling on a motorbike. One of the brothers, Saifullah, was shot in the head and died, while the other brother, Muhammad Nawaz, was shot in the leg. The petitioner, who is Saifullah's wife, was implicated in the case based on the complainant's supplementary statement. The allegation against the petitioner is that she conspired with one of the accused, provided information, and played a role in the crime due to alleged illicit relations. The petitioner's counsel argues that she has been falsely implicated and that there is no concrete evidence connecting her to the crime, except for the allegations in the supplementary statement. The defense disputes the significance of the Call Data Record (CDR) as conclusive evidence and emphasizes that no incriminating material was found during the investigation. Additionally, the petitioner is described as an elderly woman and claims that she should not be detained without tangible proof. The State, represented by the Additional Prosecutor General, opposes the grant of bail, asserting that the petitioner was specifically named in the supplementary statement and that the CDR indicates her contact with the alleged perpetrator of the crime. After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the available record, the court finds that the petitioner was not initially named in the crime report and was only implicated later based on the supplementary statement. The court notes that the supplementary statement lacks specific details regarding the conspiracy, such as the date, time, place, witnesses, or concrete evidence of the petitioner's involvement. The court further observes that the CDR alone does not establish the petitioner's guilt. As the petitioner's presence is no longer required for investigation purposes, the court concludes that keeping her in custody indefinitely would not be in the interest of justice. Consequently, the court converts the petition into an appeal, allowing it and setting aside the Lahore High Court's order dated April 20, 2022. The petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds worth Rs. 100,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The detailed reasons for the court's decision are provided in the order dated September 22, 2022.

Summary: Bail granted ---- ''Nomination of accused before Identification Parade - further inquiry'' ---- Background: The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. 547/2020, registered on 18.08.2020, for charges under sections 392, 395, 412, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case involved a robbery where four unknown accused allegedly stole cash, a mobile phone, a motorcycle, and other documents from the complainant on 29.07.2020. The petitioner was nominated as an accused in a supplementary statement on 18.08.2020, nearly three weeks after the crime. ----- Issues: -----1) Whether the nomination of the petitioner through a supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information qualifies the case as a matter of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. ----- 2) Whether the identification parade conducted after the petitioner's nomination and the subsequent recovery of cash impact the petitioner's entitlement to bail. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court granted the petitioner's post-arrest bail based on the following reasoning: ----- Delayed Nomination & Supplementary Statement: The petitioner was nominated through a supplementary statement recorded weeks after the initial FIR, and no source of information was disclosed. This delay and the lack of explanation raised doubts about the petitioner's involvement, leading the Court to conclude that the case fell under the scope of "further inquiry" as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court cited Naeem Akhtar’s Case (1996 SCMR 511), reinforcing the idea that nomination through a supplementary statement without explanation makes the case one of further inquiry. ----- Identification Parade: The petitioner’s identification parade was conducted on 14.09.2020, after his nomination. The Court noted that when an accused is nominated before an identification parade, the credibility of the identification is diminished. The Court referenced Saadi Ahmad’s Case (2011 YLR 689), emphasizing that the evidentiary value of such a parade should be determined during the trial. ----- Recovery of Cash: The alleged recovery of Rs. 30,000 at the petitioner's pointing out would also be subject to trial court scrutiny and did not disqualify him from bail. ----- Other Criminal Cases: The Court noted that although the petitioner had a history of criminal cases, he had not been convicted, which did not automatically disqualify him from being granted bail. ----- Complete Investigation: The investigation had been completed, and the petitioner's custody was no longer required for further investigation, justifying his release on bail. ----- Conclusion: The petitioner's bail application was granted, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 100,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court emphasized that the case warranted further inquiry due to the delayed nomination through a supplementary statement and the lack of corroborative evidence at this stage. ----- Citations/Precedents: Naeem Akhtar’s Case (1996 SCMR 511) Abid Ali @ Ali’s Case (2011 SCMR 161) Saadi Ahmad’s Case (2011 YLR 689)

Summary: The case involves Umar Zaib (petitioner) seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 394 & 411 PPC at Police Station Taxila, Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleges that four unknown perpetrators invaded the complainant's house, inflicted injuries, and robbed valuables. Umar Zaib, along with three others, was identified as the culprits during judicial identification proceedings. Initially, three co-accused were granted bail by the learned ASJ, Taxila, based on the ground of lack of recovery of stolen items. However, the court found flaws in the bail orders, particularly the disregard for identification proceedings and criminal antecedents. Therefore, a notice for cancellation of bail was issued. Upon examination, it was revealed that the accused had criminal track records and were identified during judicial proceedings. Additionally, stolen articles were recovered, and medical reports supported the complainant's injuries. The court determined that the bail orders suffered from perversity and contravened statutory and judicial directives. The court, invoking its powers under Article 203 of the Constitution and Sections 435 & 439 of the Cr.P.C., revoked the bail orders and ordered the accused to be taken into custody. It emphasized the importance of maintaining procedural stringency in criminal cases and ensuring justice is served. The State through Advocte-General N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 173): Courts must consider fresh grounds in subsequent bail applications. Amir Masih v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 1524): The rule of fresh ground applies even if an earlier bail petition is withdrawn after some arguments. Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 126): High Courts can exercise revisional powers over subordinate courts to ensure justice. The State v. Muhammad Nazir and others (PLD 1991 Lahore 433): High Courts can cancel bail granted by subordinate courts through suo moto notice in revisional jurisdiction. The judgment underscores the courts' duty to uphold justice and the need for adherence to legal procedures, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like robbery.

Summary: (conviction maintained)--Four masked gunmen entered the shop and robbed prize bonds worth two million rupees. During the robbery, the assailants fired shots, resulting in the deaths of 2 individuals, while two witnesses were injured. The appellant contested the charges and denied his involvement, claiming that the identities of the assailants were uncertain as they were wearing masks. After considering the arguments and examining the evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions but altered the penalty of death to imprisonment for life on each count. The court acknowledged that the witnesses were closely related to the victims, and the identification of the appellant as one of the assailants was supported by the elimination of the other nominated assailants in a police encounter. The court also noted that although the prosecution failed to produce medical certificates for the injured witnesses, their presence at the crime scene was deemed plausible. The court concluded that the improvements in the witnesses' statements did not undermine their overall credibility, and the appellant's conviction and sentences, except for the conviction under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were upheld. The conviction under section 7(a) was set aside based on a previous ruling of the court. The remaining convictions, including the imposition of compensation and fines, were maintained.

Summary: Identification of an accused is a two-step process. First, the suspect undergoes a test identification parade and second, the credibility of the eye-witness is assessed by weighing the evidence in the light of the estimator variables. A non-exhaustive list of "estimator variables" negatively affecting the memory process includes stress, weapon focus, duration, distance and lighting, characteristics of witness and perpetrator.

Summary: Identification of an accused is a two-step process. First, the suspect undergoes a test identification parade and second, the credibility of the eye-witness is assessed by weighing the evidence in the light of the estimator variables. A non-exhaustive list of "estimator variables" negatively affecting the memory process includes stress, weapon focus, duration, distance and lighting, characteristics of witness and perpetrator.

Summary: ----Background:Muhammad Saleem, the appellant, faced trial for multiple offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). These included charges of murder (Section 302 PPC), causing hurt (Section 324 PPC), robbery (Section 380 PPC), and receiving stolen prope

Summary: #NAME?

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Lawful business.. pre-requisits for imposition of section 144 CrP.C