Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Article 199 ----Writ jurisdiction---Virtual presence of accused in criminal proceedings---Scope---Petitioner, a high-profile individual facing multiple investigations and trials, sought permission for virtual attendance via video link citing security concerns and logistical challenges. Held, while the law allows constructive presence through video link in specific circumstances, certain stages of the criminal justice process require physical presence, such as remand hearings, plea recording, and statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. However, non-critical hearings and evidence recording may utilize video link with court approval. Cited Cases: Meera Shafi v. Ali Zafar (PLD 2023 SC 211) Shahzaib and others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 886) The State of Maharashtra and P.C Singh v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (AIR 2003 SC 2053) (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Sections 498-A, 342, 167, 265-C, 353, and 540-A ----Criminal proceedings---Virtual presence of accused---Scope---Constructive presence via video link is permissible during certain stages, such as evidence recording or non-final bail hearings, with court discretion. However, mandatory physical presence is required for critical stages such as: Remand hearings (Section 167 Cr.P.C): Physical custody requires the accused's presence. Bail before arrest (Section 498-A Cr.P.C): Initial filing and final adjudication necessitate physical presence. Charge framing and plea recording (Section 265-C Cr.P.C): Accused must sign the plea physically. Statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C: Accused must be physically present to sign the statement. (c) Modernization of Criminal Justice System ----Judicial reforms---Use of technology---Scope---The judgment highlighted the dire need for integrating modern technologies in Pakistan’s criminal justice system to enhance efficiency and transparency. The court emphasized the adoption of video link facilities for non-critical stages and recommended framing of rules under Sections 365 and 554 Cr.P.C. for consistent application. (d) Fundamental Rights – Fair Trial (Article 10A) ----Security concerns of accused---Balance between fair trial and security---Scope---The court held that allowing virtual presence through video link for certain stages ensures the right to a fair trial (Article 10A) while addressing security concerns and logistical difficulties faced by high-profile individuals. Disposition The petition was disposed of with the following directives: Virtual presence of accused may be allowed for non-critical hearings, including interim bail proceedings and evidence recording, subject to prior court approval. Physical presence remains mandatory for critical stages such as remand hearings, plea recording, and final adjudication of bail before arrest. The Islamabad High Court Registrar was directed to initiate the framing of rules to incorporate modern technology in judicial proceedings for clarity and uniformity. Outcome Petition disposed of; guidelines issued for constructive presence through video link in criminal proceedings.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- The judgment meticulously examined the prosecution's evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in key witnesses' testimonies, an unproven motive, and inconclusive recovery of a firearm. It questioned the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, categorizing them as chance witnesses who failed to substantiate their presence at the crime scene. Factors such as the delay in the postmortem examination and the absence of specific injuries attributed to the accused contributed to casting doubt on the prosecution's case.Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing legal precedents, including 'Mst. Sughra Begum and another Vs. Qaiser Pervez and others' (2015 SCMR 1142), 'Muhammad Ilyas Vs Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others' (2017 SCMR 142), and 'Muhammad Zaman Mangat Vs. Muhammad Akhtar and others' (2004 SCMR 757), the judge underscored the principle that even a single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused. Consequently, the judge allowed Liaqat Ali alias Bao's appeal, setting aside his conviction and sentence. The revision petition seeking the enhancement of Liaqat Ali's sentence was also dismissed, given his acquittal.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Conviction and sentence---Benefit of doubt regarding the identity of the shooter---Appellant was charged with the murder of a police officer during an attempted bank robbery and was initially sentenced to death under S. 302(a), P.P.C.---Upon reassessment of the evidence, the Court held that it could not be conclusively established whether the fatal shot was fired by the appellant or his deceased co-accused---Superior courts have held that uncertainty in identifying the specific assailant responsible for a fatal shot is a valid ground for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment---Conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C. maintained, but sentence reduced to life imprisonment with compensation of PKR 1,000,000 to be paid to each legal heir of the deceased under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 154---FIR---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---Appellant contended that the FIR was registered after a delay of 11 hours, which created doubts regarding the prosecution’s version---Court held that the delay was justified, as the priority was securing the crime scene and ensuring medical assistance to the injured, including the appellant, his deceased co-accused, and the deceased police officer---No benefit of delay was drawn by the prosecution, nor was the accused prejudiced, as he was arrested on the spot in injured condition---FIR was found to be credible and not fabricated---Reliance placed on Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State (2011 SCMR 872). (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ---- S. 7(a), (b), (c), (h)---Application of ATA---Scope---Court assessed whether the case fell within the ambit of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in light of Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61)---For an act to qualify as terrorism, there must be an object, intent, purpose, and design to create terror---Court held that the appellant’s intent was solely to commit robbery, and the murder occurred due to resistance by the security guards, without any intent to create terror---Mere severity of the act or public panic does not transform an offense into terrorism---Appellant acquitted of all ATA charges. (d) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- Ss. 324, 393, 427---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, and mischief---Evidence---Appellant was convicted for attempting to commit robbery, causing injuries to a bank security guard, and damaging property of the bank---Eyewitness testimonies, CCTV footage, forensic firearm analysis, and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case---Appellant was apprehended on the spot in injured condition, and his unlicensed firearm was recovered---Ballistic report confirmed that the empties found at the scene matched the appellant’s weapon---Court found the prosecution’s evidence to be reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring---Convictions under Ss. 324, 393, and 427, P.P.C. upheld. (e) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ---- S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of an unlicensed weapon---Appellant was found in possession of a 9mm pistol at the crime scene---Weapon was recovered at the time of his arrest and was linked to the crime through forensic analysis---No valid license was produced---Conviction under S. 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act upheld. ----Disposition: Appeal partly allowed---Conviction under S. 302(a), P.P.C. altered to S. 302(b), P.P.C., with sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment---All other convictions under P.P.C. and Sindh Arms Act maintained---Appellant acquitted of all charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State (2011 SCMR 872) Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) Farooq Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 917) Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 725) Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (2020 SCMR 474) Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61)

Summary: Bail denied --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497---Bail---Murder case---Facilitator’s role---Common intention---Petitioner sought bail in a case registered under Ss. 302, 427 & 34, PPC for murder allegedly committed due to previous blood feud---Specific role of firing was attributed to co-accused, while petitioner was alleged to be driving the motorcycle facilitating the attack---Held, that at bail stage it is not material as to whose fire hit the deceased when the occurrence prima facie reflected a joint assault indicating common intention---Facilitator of crime stands on the same footing as principal offender---Petitioner, having facilitated commission of offence, was prima facie connected with the crime---Case fell within the prohibitory clause---No ground for further inquiry was made out---Bail rightly declined. (b) Criminal trial---Further inquiry---Scope---Held, that bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. can only be granted when Court reaches a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused committed a non-bailable offence---Mere assertion that effective role of firing was attributed to co-accused does not attract further inquiry---Reasonable grounds are those which appeal to a reasonable judicial mind and not conjectural or illusory---Material placed by prosecution was sufficient to establish prima facie involvement of petitioner. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 34 & 302---Common intention---Facilitation of offence---Held, that where accused persons jointly launch an attack and one facilitates commission of offence, liability extends to all participants under S.34, PPC---Presence, facilitation and conduct of petitioner prima facie reflected common intention to commit murder. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Trial in progress---Effect on bail---Held, that where challan has been submitted and trial has commenced or is ripe for recording of evidence, superior courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in bail matters---Release of accused at such stage may hamper trial---Petitioner not entitled to concession of bail once trial had commenced. Cited Cases: • Siraj and another v. The State 2000 PCT.LJ 1220 (Peshawar) • Sher Bahadar v. Haji Ghafoor Ali Khan and another 1999 PCT.LJ 403 (Peshawar) • Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others 1985 SCMR 195 • Fohad Hussain v. The State 2023 SCMR 364 • Said Akbar and another v. Gul Akbar and another 1996 SCMR 931 • Malook Khan v. The State and another 2021 MLD 379 (Peshawar) Disposition: Bail petition dismissed; petitioner held prima facie connected with commission of murder as facilitator sharing common intention; observations held to be tentative and not to prejudice the merits of trial.

Summary: (Constructive liability in meeting accused to do the criminal act in furtherance of common intention, further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime)(Bail Denied) According to the FIR lodged by the complainant, Mehboob Ali, the petitioner and his siblings allegedly pressured the complainant to sell the property and distribute the shares. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner and others had previously beaten him, his wife, and had ousted them from the house. The complainant also claimed that theft had occurred, including precious articles, cash, and the original file of the house. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. They contended that the petitioner had not committed any overt act and had been dragged into false accusations. The counsel further argued that the complainant had dispossessed the petitioner from the house, and a civil suit regarding the sale transaction was pending. The Additional Prosecutor General opposed the bail petition, stating that the accused had forcibly dispossessed the complainant from the house, and there were no grounds to suggest mala fide intentions. The prosecution argued that the complainant had lodged the FIR against his sons due to their unlawful acts and indecent behavior. After hearing the arguments, the court noted that both the lower courts had observed that the injuries sustained by the complainant's relatives were consistent with the medical evidence and the complainant's version of events. The court also highlighted serious allegations against the accused regarding fraud, misappropriation of household items, and the creation of a false agreement to sell. The court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the case and dismissed the bail petition. It emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted in exceptional situations and should not be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail. The court also mentioned the importance of honoring parents and found no evidence of mala fide intentions by the complainant. The judgment emphasized that the findings and observations were tentative and limited to the pre-arrest bail stage, without prejudicing either party during the trial. Overall, the Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the previous decision of the High Court of Sindh.

Summary: Ss. 302, 427, 148, 149 and 109 PPC.(i)Accused/Petitioner not named in the FIR, was subsequently charged for murder of deceased by complainant and deceased`s mother in their statement under section 164 Cr.P.C with specific role of firing at the deceased.(ii)Recovery of two crime empties from the spot, recovery of bloodstained earth and bloodstained garments of the deceased coupled with positive serologist report in respect thereof and postmortem report showing unnatural death of the deceased with firearms corroborate version of the complainant.(iii)Another criminal case with regard to attempt at the life of the deceased by the petitioner also corroborated the prosecution`s case.(iv)Other FIRs are also available on file which shows criminal history of the petitioner in cases of murder and attempt to commit murder.(v)Petitioner prime facie found connected with the commission of offence entailing capital punishment.(vi)Bail refused.

Summary: (a) Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) ----S. 382-B----Benefit of detention period prior to conviction----Scope and applicability. The petitioner sought the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., for the period spent in detention prior to conviction. Held, the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., is mandatory and can be granted at any stage, even if omitted by the trial or appellate courts. This provision aims to ensure fairness by reducing the sentence of the accused by accounting for the time spent in pre-conviction detention. Cited Cases: • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Mehmood Khan (2017 SCMR 2044). • Akhtar Maqsood v. Superintendent Camp Jail, Lahore (2020 P Cr.LJ 447). • Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1995 P Cr.LJ 37). Disposition: Application allowed; benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., granted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302, 427, 34----Life imprisonment----Reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment----Relevance of motive. The petitioner’s sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment on appeal due to the unclear establishment of motive. The Court observed that the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., applies irrespective of the nature of the offense or the severity of the sentence. Disposition: Life sentence adjusted with remissions for pre-conviction detention. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) ----S. 561-A----Inherent powers of the court----Grant of benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. post-conviction. The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., to grant relief, noting that the omission to apply Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., at earlier stages does not bar its subsequent application. The Court emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive an accused of statutory rights. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1995 P Cr.LJ 37). Disposition: Application granted. (d) Remissions----Applicability in heinous offenses----Mandatory nature of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. The Court rejected the argument that the heinous nature of the offense precludes remissions. It reiterated that Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., is mandatory and must be applied irrespective of the crime’s gravity, unless expressly excluded by law. Disposition: Petitioner granted relief under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 297, 320 & 427---Causing death by rash and negligent driving and causing damage to property---Appreciation of evidence---Necessary witness---Evidence non-recording of---Four persons lost their lives in an accident between a truck and a trailer---Accused was convicted for driving rash and negligently which resulted into death of four persons---Validity--- Prosecution was duty bound to prove rash and negligent driving by leading independent and cogent evidence---Prosecution failed to record statements of cleaners of trailer and truck--- Evidence of no eye-witness of the occurrence was recorded to prove rash and negligent driving---Trailer and truck were not examined by Motor Vehicle Examiner to ascertain their speed and brakes to fix liability on driver of trailer or truck---Merely saying that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving was not enough to substantiate allegations levelled against accused---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Yasir Arafat v. The State and another 2012 MLD 611 and Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel.

Summary: Section 365-B/354/427/509 PPCBail refusal of.(i) Accused/petitioner was directly charged by Mst. Malika Qazi, a Medical student of Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, for her abduction and forcibly snatching 11 pro mobile with memory card, cash amount of Rs. 60,000/- from her possession and that he also ripped out of her Hijab, exposed her face, pulled her ears and nose and subjected her to physical torture by targeting with cuts on her body.(ii) Question of mistaken identity does not arise as petitioner was already known to the victim students as he had tried to develop friendship with her prior to the incident.(iii) The occurrence has taken place at BRT Station near Peshawar Board, A thickly populated area.(iv) The Petitioner has suppressed all the limits, who has tried his level best to kidnap the victim students, portraying her in the public to be his lawfully wedded wife and with such gestures, she might have been thereafter compelled to marry or otherwise seduced her to illicit intercourse.(v) By his act the petitioner has stigmatize the victim student in the society and in her family.(vi) Petitioner prima facie found connected with the commission of a crime of moral turpitude and such like happening needs strongest condemnation.(vii) Bail refused.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, challenged the judgment dated 29.09.2022, passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Peshawar, in case FIR No. 1861 dated 25.12.2016 under sections 324/353/427 PPC, read with section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The appeal also included a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment and an appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of co-accused Jehangir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution established the presence of the complainant at the scene of the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict Shah Hussain. 3- Whether the acquittal of co-accused Jehangir was justified. 4- Whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Presence of the Complainant: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the complainant at the scene. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence and other facts. The court noted that the complainant’s presence at the scene was not credible. --Sufficiency of Evidence Against Shah Hussain: The court observed that the identification of the appellant by voice was weak and not supported by reliable evidence. The medical evidence did not corroborate the complainant's version of the events. Furthermore, the delay in sending the crime weapon and empties for forensic examination diminished the evidentiary value. As such, the court found the evidence against Shah Hussain insufficient for conviction. --Acquittal of Co-accused Jehangir: The court upheld the acquittal of Jehangir, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the complainant at the scene and the overall reliability of the prosecution's evidence was questionable. The court agreed with the trial court's decision to acquit Jehangir based on the lack of credible evidence. --Enhancement of Sentence: The court dismissed the revision for enhancement of the sentence, citing the failure of the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence to justify an increase in the sentence. The court accepted the appeal of Shah Hussain, setting aside his conviction and sentence, and ordered his release if not required in any other case. The criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence and the appeal against the acquittal of Jehangir were both dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Khan & Another vs. The State (1999 SCMR 1030) Muhammad Khan & Others vs. The State (1999 SCMR 1220) Mst. Sughran Begum & Another vs. Qaiser Vez & Others (2015 SCMR 1142) Abdul Khaliq vs. The State (1996 SCMR 1553) Ali Sher & Others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 707)