Summary: Bail cancelled ---- ''Person who is not advocate but poses so, commits fraud with entire legal system of the country.'' --- Background:Muhammad Rafie filed a petition challenging the validity of the order dated 02.11.2023, issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, granting pre-arrest bail to Ghaneem Aabir (respondent No.1/accused). The case arose from F.I.R. No.847/2023, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC read with Section 58 of the Legal Practitioners and Bars Councils Act, 1973 at Police Station: Civil Lines, Lahore.The petitioner alleged that Ghaneem Aabir posed as an advocate without proper legal credentials and defrauded the public.----Issues:Legality of the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.1.Allegations of posing as an advocate without legal justification and defrauding the public.-----Holding:After considering the arguments and examining the available record, the court found sufficient evidence to establish that respondent No.1 had posed as an advocate without proper legal credentials and had defrauded the public. The court cited relevant precedents and legal principles to support its decision to set aside the impugned order granting pre-arrest bail. The order granting bail was deemed perverse, capricious, arbitrary, and not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The impugned order granting pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1 was set aside, and the bail granted was recalled. The court directed the Station House Officer, Police Station: Civil Lines, District Lahore to proceed in accordance with the law. The observations made in the order were clarified to be tentative and strictly confined to the disposal of the instant bail petition.----Citations/Precedents:Ahtisham Ali vs The State (2023 S C M R 975)Muhammad Rafique vs The State and others (P L D 2022 Supreme Court 694)Amir Faraz vs The State (2023 SCMR 308)

Summary: ''An accused who has been granted bail, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest, by a court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be arrested merely on addition of new offences unless cancellation of earlier bail is sought under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.'' ---- Issue:The primary legal question was whether an accused, already granted bail by a competent court, could be rearrested in the same case due to the addition of new charges.----Facts:Rashid Hassan Butt, the petitioner's son, was detained by the Anti Vehicle Lifting Squad in connection with FIR No. 2219/23 for offences under Section 381-A PPC at Shera Kot Police Station, Lahore.The petitioner's son was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail, which was later confirmed and went unchallenged, gaining finality.Subsequently, new charges under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC were added, leading to the son's rearrest by the investigating officer, Respondent No.2.----Judgment:The Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal jurisprudence, particularly when additional charges are added against a bailed-out accused.Rule 26.21(6) of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was highlighted, stating that a police officer cannot re-arrest an accused released on bail without first obtaining a court order for bail cancellation.The Court underscored that the liberty of an individual, once acknowledged through the grant of bail, should not be undermined by subsequent police actions without judicial intervention.It was held that the arrest of the petitioner's son, without seeking the cancellation of the existing bail, was illegal and a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan.

Summary: Background: A case involving the offences under sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 of the APC was registered on 10.08.2022. According to the complainant, an assault occurred at the home of the victim, where the accused allegedly inflicted severe injuries using blunt objects and sticks. The motive was believed to be a familial disagreement. After the registration of the case, the accused sought bail. The District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction granted bail to one of the accused. The remaining accused filed a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which granted bail to some of the accused while dismissing the petition for one accused. -----Issues: 1- Whether the accused, who was denied bail by the High Court, should be granted bail. 2- Whether the bail granted to other accused by the High Court should be cancelled. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case, based on the statements of two eye witnesses, did not clearly support the role attributed to the accused who was denied bail. The discrepancies between the FIR, statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., and court testimonies necessitated further inquiry. The court ruled that since the matter required further investigation, the accused should be granted bail. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of one million rupees and two sureties of the like amount. -----Cancellation of Bail for Other Accused: The Supreme Court found no specific role attributed to one of the accused, who was not named in the FIR but was arrested on allegations of abetment. Another accused had a similar role to an already bailed accused. The court determined that there was no illegality in the High Court’s decision to grant bail to these accused, and thus, dismissed the revision petition for cancellation of bail. ----Citations/Precedents: The case reported as 2017 YLR 1238 was referenced by the counsel for the complainant.

Summary: (NAB and cases of pre-arrest bail. Requirements to be considered by the court) The petitions were filed in response to Reference No. 6 of 2019, which was filed by NAB against several contractors and an Assistant Executive Engineer. The reference alleged corruption and embezzlement of funds for Development Schemes in the Municipal Committee of Dera Murad Jamali in 2014-15. The contractors were accused of not adhering to specifications and making excess payments with the assistance of the Assistant Executive Engineer. The High Court had granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail to the respondents based on their cooperation during the investigation, the possession of relevant records by NAB, and the absence of arrest warrants. The High Court noted that the role and guilt of each accused needed to be proven during the trial, along with the loss caused and the benefit obtained. During the Supreme Court hearing, it was revealed that two of the respondents had passed away, rendering their petitions infructuous. As for the remaining petitions, the Deputy Prosecutor General of NAB argued that the High Court's judgment deviated from established principles regarding bail, citing previous cases. However, the Supreme Court found no perversity in the High Court's judgment and upheld the decision, stating that the respondents had cooperated and had not misused bail. The Court emphasized that the guilt of each accused and the extent of their involvement needed to be determined during the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused Leave to Appeal. The judgment highlights the requirements and considerations for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving NAB.

Summary: Bail cancelled ---- Background: This petition was filed to challenge the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was involved in conspiring and abetting the murder of a person, even though the respondent was not named in the initial FIR. During the investigation, another accused was arrested and disclosed that the respondent had planned the murder, leading to their involvement in the crime. The trial court granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent, which the petitioner sought to have canceled. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent's pre-arrest bail should be revoked based on the evidence collected during the investigation, which suggests the respondent's involvement in the conspiracy and abetment of the murder. 2- Whether the initial granting of pre-arrest bail was perverse, considering the circumstances and evidence linking the respondent to the crime. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the evidence gathered, including the respondent’s connection with other accused and the use of a particular mobile number, provided sufficient material to link the respondent to the crime. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted in cases where the accused is being falsely implicated or there is clear mala fide intent, neither of which was evident in this case. The court determined that the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court was perverse, as it overlooked the incriminating material and failed to consider the severity of the charges, including abetment and conspiracy in a murder. As a result, the court set aside the earlier bail order and canceled the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent. -----Citations/Precedents: Mir Muhammad and others v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others (2020 SCMR 168) Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State and another (2015 SCMR 1394) Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427) Wajid Ali v. Mumtaz Ali Khan etc. (NLR 2000 Criminal 48) Mst. Hanifan Bibi and another v. Zulfiqar and another [PLJ 2001 Cr.C (Lahore) 168] Nazeer Ahmad v. Abdul Rashid Chatha and another [PLJ 2004 Cr.C (Lahore) 727] Sarwar Sultan v. The State and another (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 133)

Summary: The petitioner claims that Nadeem Zulf, along with others, murdered his two brothers in a dispute over inherited property. The eyewitness statements support the prosecution's version mentioned in the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the FIR was lodged promptly, within one hour and twenty minutes of the incident, and it specifically mentioned that Nadeem Zulf fired a pistol, causing a fatal injury to Naseem Zulf. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court concludes that the petitioner promptly reported the incident and attributed a specific pistol shot injury to Nadeem Zulf. The court finds that the second Investigating Officer's opinion lacks concrete evidence and relies on a mere statement from a co-accused. The court determines that the High Court's grant of bail was based on irrelevant material and disregarded the material evidence indicating the accused's involvement. The court declares that the High Court's order was perverse, going against the weight of the evidence, and thus the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled. The court emphasizes that each case must be decided on its own facts and that the Investigating Officer's opinion should be based on strong and concrete material. The court criticizes the High Court's practice in this case and reiterates that a bail order can be cancelled if it is found to be perverse.

Summary: Bail denied --- The petitioner claims that Nadeem Zulf, along with others, murdered his two brothers in a dispute over inherited property. The eyewitness statements support the prosecution's version mentioned in the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the FIR was lodged promptly, within one hour and twenty minutes of the incident, and it specifically mentioned that Nadeem Zulf fired a pistol, causing a fatal injury to Naseem Zulf. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court concludes that the petitioner promptly reported the incident and attributed a specific pistol shot injury to Nadeem Zulf. The court finds that the second Investigating Officer's opinion lacks concrete evidence and relies on a mere statement from a co-accused. The court determines that the High Court's grant of bail was based on irrelevant material and disregarded the material evidence indicating the accused's involvement. The court declares that the High Court's order was perverse, going against the weight of the evidence, and thus the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled. The court emphasizes that each case must be decided on its own facts and that the Investigating Officer's opinion should be based on strong and concrete material. The court criticizes the High Court's practice in this case and reiterates that a bail order can be cancelled if it is found to be perverse.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497(5) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324---Cancellation of bail---Attempt tocommit qatl-i-amd---Scope---Complainant sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted toaccused in an FIR lodged under S. 324, P.P.C.---Accused was alleged to have caused a firearm injury resulting in distal femur fracture---Prima facie, that version of complainant wassupported by Medico Legal Certificate; further, the footage of CCTV also supported theversion of the complainant--- Accused had pointed pistol towards the complainant andpressed the trigger; whether he had intention to kill or not was the question which could bedetermined by the Trial Court but prima facie, an act had been committed causing homicidalinjury---Order passed by Trial Court was not sustainable, same was set aside and bail grantedto the accused was recalled, in circumstances.

Summary: [Scope and meaning of ?cross-version? in a bail matter] The petitioner, Muhammad Rafique, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order, which granted post-arrest bail to respondent No.2, Muhammad Farooq, in a murder case registered at Police Station, Saddar Hafizabad. The petitioner requested the cancellation of the bail. The allegations against respondent No.2 were that he, along with other co-accused, launched a murderous attack on the complainant party, resulting in the death of Atiq-ur-Rehman. Respondent No.2 and his co-accused presented a cross-version of the occurrence during the investigation, claiming that they went to the complainant party's place to rescue an abducted person. The police found this cross-version to be false, but the High Court granted bail to respondent No.2, stating that the case was one of further inquiry. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both parties and examined the case record. The court established that a cross-version alone is not a valid ground for considering the case one of further inquiry, unless it is supported by material available on record or there is uncertainty regarding the truth. The court found that the cross-version presented by the accused party was not supported by any cogent material and was contradicted by the statements of injured witnesses, other witnesses, medical evidence, and recoveries of alleged weapons of offence. The court tentatively assessed the material and concluded that the complainant party's version was prima facie true, and respondent No.2 appeared to be the aggressor. The Supreme Court determined that the High Court had erred in relying on the unsubstantiated cross-version to consider the case as one of further inquiry, without supporting material. The court invoked its constitutional obligation to rectify such orders when they derogate from settled principles of law or are found to be perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the bail granted to respondent No.2 was set aside. Respondent No.2 was ordered to surrender before the trial court. The court clarified that its observations and findings in this order were of a tentative nature and would not affect the final determination of the case by the trial court at the conclusion of the trial. Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. Impugned order granting bail was set-aside and dismissed.

Summary: Grounds for cancellation of bail ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.9---Bail, cancellation of---Grounds--Ordinarily the superior Courts are reluctant to interfere into the order extending concession of bail---Rationale behind this is that once concession of bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required to hamper with the concession extended to a person who is otherwise clothed with free life---Any contrary action of the court would be synonymous to curtailing the liberty of such person, which otherwise is a precious right guaranteed under the Constitution---Grounds for cancellation of bail provided. -------Following are some of the grounds for cancellation of bail granted to an accused: (i)If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice; (ii)The accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner; (iii)The accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses; (iv)There is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court; (v)The accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation; (vi)The accused misused his liberty while indulging into a similar offence; and (vii)Some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation which tends to establish guilt of the accused. [p. 1345] A & B Sami Ullah and another v. Laiq Zada and another 2020 SCMR 1115 and Sharif Khan v. The State and another 2021 SCMR 87 rel.