Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 436, 427, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Mischief by fire and explosive substance, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-applicant were that he along with five others set ablaze the houses of complainant party along with their surrounding hedge by means of matchstick as a result whereof the hedge, houses and the household articles lying there were burnt to ashes, whereas, the co-accused persons resorted to aerial firing---From perusal of the record it would be seen that the applicant was named in the FIR and specific role of setting the houses on fire with surrounding hedge and household articles of complainant by means of matchstick was assigned to him---So far as delay in lodgment of FIR was concerned, delay per se was no ground to discard and/discredit the entire prosecution case/version---No mala fide was shown on the part of complainant to implicate the applicant/accused in the case falsely, particularly, nothing had been placed on record to substantiate the ground urged with regard to any land dispute between the parties---Principles governing thegrant of post arrest bail and those for seeking pre-arrest bail were altogether different---Basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were lacking in this case---Per progress report submitted by the Trial Court, after framing of charge against the accused, witnesses had been appearing but the defence was seeking adjournment on one or the other pretext---Such brazen attitude of accused showed they had no nexus or concern with trial but to press bail application only to linger on the trial proceedings to defeat the interest of prosecution---Applicant had no case for grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail--- Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and others PLD 2009 SC 427 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto for Applicant. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Javed Ahmed Soomro for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Whether power to do so laid with Federal Investigation Agency or Federal Government---Petitioners were implicated in FIR registered under Ss.419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109 & 34, P.P.C, read with Ss.36 & 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance and S.4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010---Initially they were admitted to bail, but were subsequently acquitted by the District Court, however, the acquittal appeal filed against their acquittal order was partly accepted and matter was remanded for fresh decision, but in the post-remand proceedings, they were convicted---On filing of appeal, this Court suspended the conviction and sentence, and released the petitioners on bail---When the petitionersattempted to travel abroad to perform Umrah, they were stopped at the airport and informed that their names had been placed on the blacklist/Passport Control List by the DG Immigration & Passport on the recommendation of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)---Held: Right to travel formed an essential part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty and could only be restricted under a valid law enacted in the public interest---Any restraint on movement must have lawful justification and could not be imposed arbitrarily---Executive discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith and within the bounds of law---Administrative instructions or policies could not curtail constitutional rights beyond statutory authority and mere pendency of criminal proceedings was not sufficient to prohibit movement---Restrictions such as blacklisting must be applied sparingly, after application of mind and must not be indefinite or disproportionate---Executive must not act mechanically on departmental recommendations---Placement on an exit or Passport Control List could not be automatic upon registration of FIR or even upon pendency of proceedings; if a person was on bail, released or not a proclaimed offender, the authority must give cogent, specific reasons before curtailing his/her constitutional right to travel---Suspension of sentence did not ipso facto amount to acquittal; however, suspension neutralized theoperative effect of a conviction for the time being and enlivened the petitioners' right to be treated as persons entitled to procedural fairness---Even for persons who stand convicted, any preventive restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and must be exercised after application of mind and by giving reasons---Rules could not be used in a mechanical fashion to perpetuate deprivation of a constitutional right without review and without the administrative authority stating cogent grounds---Absence of any record of reconsideration of any fresh security assessment, or of any contemporaneous reasons why the petitioners should continue to be prevented from travelling, led the Court to the conclusion that the placement on Passport Control List was not the result of an exercise of reasoned discretion---Where the rule was invoked the authority must showed that the case fell squarely within the categories enumerated in the Rule; that the decision was not taken mechanically, but after application of mind; that the restriction was proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and that the person affected was given an opportunity to be heard, unless the urgency of the circumstance rendered such hearing impracticable and then the authority must nevertheless record reasons for not giving such hearing---None of those safeguards were visible on the record before this Court in respect of the petitioners---Rule 22(1) contemplated that the Federal Government was vested with the power to regulate departure and entry and the Division concerned and Directorate General shall prepare and maintain the Passport Control List; yet there was nothing on record to indicate that any approval by the Federal Government, where required, hadbeen obtained in relation to those entries, or that the competent Division applied its mind to the matter---For reasons of good governance and to avoid arbitraryexercise of power, entries on Passport Control List could not be made or maintained in a clandestine, mechanical and non-reviewable manner---Respondents had not produced any material to show that the petitioners posed a continuing security risk, which could not be addressed by less restrictive measures, for instance, by conditional travel permission, surrendering of passports to the Trial Court, or by Court-ordered restrictions tailored to ensure presence for trial---Record showed that the petitioners were on bail, their appeal was pending and their conviction was suspended---Principal rationale advanced in support of the Passport Control List entry (fear of absconsion) had not been supported by evidence of any attempts to flee or of any threat to national security---In the absence of such material, continuing the bar on travel was disproportionate---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. General (Retd). Pervez Musharraf PLD 2016 SC 570; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473; Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179; Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lah. 359; Dada Amir Haider Khan’s case PLD 1987 SC 504; Wajid Shams-ud-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617; Shabana Noor Ahmed v. DG Immigration and Passport PlD 2019 Sindh 456; Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan PlD 2019 Isl. 316 and Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2014 Isl. 29 rel. (b) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Requirements and guidelines---No person shall be placed on the Passport Control List without a contemporaneous record of reasons showing application of mind;wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall be issued before placing a person on Passport Control List and an opportunity of hearing he afforded; where emergency action is taken without prior notice, reasons for omission of prior notice must be recorded in writing and the matter must be reviewed within a reasonable time; andperiodic review of entries on Passport Control List must be undertaken to ensure no person is kept on the list mechanically or indefinitely. Raja Rizwan Abbasi for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G for the State. Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, counterfeit seals, making or possessing a counterfeit seal or instrument with the intent to commit forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct---Statutory delay in conclusion of trial---Accused sought their bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Held: Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they being Administrators and Officers of the Cooperative Societies Department, in active connivance with a land grabber illegally usurped the Society, misplaced original records, filed fake memberships before Court, engineered elections in September 2020 and installed a dummy management, thereafter, bogus plot files were prepared and sold to the public, crime proceeds of approx. Rs.130 million were laundered through various accounts and two properties were purchased in an other Society---In the instant case, the applicants were charged with offences punishable under Ss.409/419/420/ 471/472/473/109/34, P.P.C. read with S.5(2) PCA-II, 1947, which were not punishable up to death, hence their bail plea was covered under part(a) of the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Said provision provided that if an accused remained detained exceeding one year without conclusion of trial, the law mandated his release on bail---For the purposes of commencement of time under the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., period for the conclusion of the trial was to be calculated from the date of the arrest/detention of the accused and it was of little importance as to when the charge was framed and the trial commenced---In the absence of any material to the effect that the applicants were previously convicted, on a tentative assessment, the applicants did not appear to fall under the parameters of hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals---Certified copies of diaries of the Trial Court as available on record also clearly depicted that delay had not been caused in trial due to act or omission from the side of the applicant/accused---Both the applicants were arrested on 16.05.2024 and had remained detained since past more than one year and three months---Prosecutor informed that there were total number of 26 accused involved in this case out of which 6 had absconded whereas 18 accused persons had already been granted bails on different grounds and only present two applicants were presently behind bars---Prosecutor further informed about the position of the trial that 'Charge' had not been framed as yet, whereas the Court was presently vacant---In these circumstances, it appeared that the trial had not even commenced as yet, and the same was not likely to conclude in near future---On a tentative assessment, a case for grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of trial was prima facie made out within the ambit of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Nadeem Samson v. the state and others PLD 2022 SC 142; Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1; Muhammad Usman v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 28; Nazir Hussain v. Zia-ul-Haq and others 1983 SCMR 72; Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State 1998 SCMR 190; Akhtar Abbas v. State PLD 1982 SC 424; Abdul Rashid v. The State 1998 SCMR 897; Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49; Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Behram and another 1998 PCr.LJ 358; Allah Wasaya v. The State and others PLD 2022 SC 541; Shahzad Ahmed v. The State through FIA Islamabad 2010 SCMR 1221; Shameel Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 174; Riaz Ahmed and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau NAB and others 2021 PCr.LJ 1182 and Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman PLD 2019 SC 112 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order being tentative in nature, should not influence the Trial Court to independently adjudicate the case on its own merits. Nisar Ahmed Tarar for Applicants (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1514 of 2025). Saad Fayaz for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1519 of 2025). Muhammad Najeeb Jamali for the Complainant (in Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1514 and 1519 of 2025). Muhammad Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. Muhammad Hasan (Akber), J .--- Through this single order, both the subject bail applications are being decided which have been filed against the common order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, `(Central-II), Karachi in FIR No.16/2024, registered under Sections 409/419/420/468/471/472/473/109/34 P.P.C read with Section 5(2) PCA-II, 1947 at Police Station F.I.A ACC, Karachi, whereby post a risk bill to both the applicants has been rejected.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 406, 489-F & 34-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)-Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, criminal breach of trust, dishonest issuance of a cheque, common intention-Bail, grant of-Further inquiry-It was not disputed that the alleged offences fell in the category of non-prohibitory clause under Section 497, Cr.P.C.-Co-accused was alleged to have entered into agreements with various persons-Whether or not the offences to the extent of the petitioner were attracted required further probe-Complainant and the State had not been able to show any exceptional circumstances so as to decline the concession of post-arrest bail-While considering the grant of bail, where offences fell within the non-prohibitory clause, the grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule, and might be declined in exceptional cases-Extra-ordinary and exceptional cases, inter alia, included likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated-Thus, a case of further inquiry was made out in the present case-Investigation had been concluded to the extent of the petitioner and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose-Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497-Bail order-Observations of the Court-Scope-Observations made in the bail order are based on tentative assessment of the available record and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. M. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Farmanullah, S.I. and Umar Badshah, ASI for the State.

Summary: (Against the order dated 11.07.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench passed in Crl. Misc. B.A. No. 267-B of 2025). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 406, 489-F & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, criminal breach of trust, dishonest issuance of a cheque, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---It was not disputed that the alleged offences fell in the category of non-prohibitory clause under Section 497, Cr.P.C.---Co-accused was alleged to have entered into agreements with various persons---Whether or not the offences to the extent of the petitioner were attracted required further probe---Complainant and the State had not been able to show any exceptional circumstances so as to decline the concession of post-arrest bail---While considering the grant of bail, where offences fell within the non-prohibitory clause, the grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule, and might be declined in exceptional cases---Extra-ordinary and exceptional cases, inter alia, included likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated---Thus, a case of further inquiry was made out in the present case--- Investigation had been concluded to the extent of the petitioner and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose---Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are based on tentative assessment of the available record and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Farmanullah, S.I. and Umar Badshah, ASI for the State. M. Tariq Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (via video link from Peshawar). Date of hearing: 9th September, 2025.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 171, 419 & 420 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail After Arrest --- Through instant petition, Waqas Javed, petitioner, has assailed order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, with prayer to set aside said order and grant post-arrest bail to him in case registered vide FIR No. 230 dated 30.04.2025 under Sections 171, 419 & 420 PPC at Police Station Margalla, Islamabad --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- As per contents of FIR, petitioner impersonated himself as intelligence officer, as well as, as media anchor and also made illegal demands from Fahad Iqbal, Inspector FIA and asked him to share source report regarding some unlawful activities about white collar crimes carried out in local territory --- Petitioner also extended threats to complainant party, hence, FIR of this case --- Offences under Sections 420 and 171 PPC are bailable and grant of bail in such like offences is right of accused whereas offence under Section 419 PPC does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is rule while refusal is exception --- No exceptional ground has been pointed out by learned Law Officer to refuse bail to petitioner, hence, petitioner is entitled to relief of post-arrest bail as observed in cases of Khalil Ahmed Soomro Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) and Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) --- Although it is argued by learned Law Officer that petitioner is also involved in one other criminal case but it is by now well settled that mere involvement of accused in some other case(s) by itself is no ground to refuse bail to him if otherwise he is entitled to said relief on merits --- Reference in this context may be made to cases of Muhammad Rafique Vs. The State (1997 SCMR 412) and Jamal ud Din alias Zubair Khan Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 573) --- Consequently, 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 one surety in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 497 (2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324-Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd-Bail, grant of-Case of further inquiry-Vicarious liability, principle of-Delay in conclusion of trial-Accused was arrested in the FIR in which five nominated co-accused persons were granted bail by High Court-It was still to be determined at the trial as to whether accused had shared common intention with nominated co-accused in committing murder of deceased and causing firearm injuries to two others and he was vicariously liable for the occurrence-Challan had already been submitted but for the last 9 months the prosecution had not examined any witness at the trial-Accused was in judicial custody and was no more required for any further investigation or probe-Allegations levelled in FIR by complainant against accused were to be proved at trial and bail could not be withheld as mere punishment-Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry-Bail was allowed. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Muhammad Asif, DSP and Arshad, Inspector for the State.

Summary: (On appeal against the order dated 28.04.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Crl. Misc. (BA) No. 193-A of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---Vicarious liability, principle of---Delay in conclusion of trial---Accused was arrested in the FIR in which five nominated co-accused persons were granted bail by High Court---It was still to be determined at the trial as to whether accused had shared common intention with nominated co-accused in committing murder of deceased and causing firearm injuries to two others and he was vicariously liable for the occurrence---Challan had already been submitted but for the last 9 months the prosecution had not examined any witness at the trial---Accused was in judicial custody and was no more required for any further investigation or probe---Allegations levelled in FIR by complainant against accused were to be proved at trial and bail could not be withheld as mere punishment---Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Bail was allowed. Asif Ali Talpur, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Muhammad Asif, DSP and Arshad, Inspector for the State. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 28th August, 2025.

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: Bail granted --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)— —S. 497—Post-arrest bail—Principles—Case of further inquiry— Accused charged under S. 376 PPC with allegation of committing zina with complainant’s daughter—DNA and medical report confirmed sexual intercourse, but medico-legal certificate disclosed no marks of violence—Victim’s statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C. raised material contradictions: FIR registered by mother who was not present at the occurrence; father and relative allegedly nearby but incident not explained satisfactorily; inconsistencies in victim’s narration during cross-examination—Held, case against accused fell within ambit of “further inquiry” under S. 497 Cr.P.C.—Where trial is delayed despite submission of challan, and accused is no longer required for investigation, bail cannot be withheld merely as punishment—Accused admitted to post-arrest bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— —S. 164—Statement of victim—Evidentiary value at bail stage— Victim’s S. 164 Cr.P.C. statement being inconsistent and raising doubts regarding occurrence circumstances, coupled with absence of corroborative violence marks, constituted valid grounds for further inquiry—Statement not sufficient by itself to deny bail where contradictions and improbabilities exist—Matter left for determination at trial. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— —S. 497—Bail—Delays in trial—Effect— Despite submission of challan in December 2024, no witness including victim examined by trial court till hearing of petition in August 2025—No plausible explanation offered by prosecution—Held, inordinate delay in trial strengthens case for bail, as bail cannot be used as pre-trial punishment. Disposition Petition converted into appeal—Allowed—Post-arrest bail granted subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.