Summary: RFA by plaintiff against dismissal of his recovery suit U/o 7 R 3.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 302(c) & Exception 4 to erstwhile S. 300—Qatl-i-Amd—Sudden fight—Mitigation of sentence—Appellant (Aftab) had caused firearm injuries to the deceased during a melee involving both parties, each armed and anticipating confrontation—Trial court convicted appellant under S. 302(b), PPC and awarded death sentence—Held, occurrence was a sudden fight without premeditation in heat of passion; no undue advantage was taken nor cruelty committed—Case attracted Exception 4 to erstwhile S. 300, PPC—High Court converted conviction from S. 302(b) to S. 302(c), PPC and reduced sentence to rigorous imprisonment of 14 years—Compensation of Rs. 500,000 under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. was upheld. Cited Cases: • Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad PLD 1996 SC 274 • Zahid Rehman v. State PLD 2015 SC 77 • Syed Ali Beopari v. Nibaran Mollah PLD 1962 SC 502 • Muhammad Ashraf alias Nikka v. State 2022 SCMR 1328 **(b) Criminal Law—Onus of proof—Injuries on accused—Benefit of doubt—Prosecution witnesses failed to explain multiple injuries on accused (Aftab, Mehtab & Jehangir alias Nomi), including firearm and blunt weapon wounds—Medical evidence confirmed their presence at the scene as injured parties—Investigating Officer did not verify claim that market bystanders caused the injuries—Held, both parties withheld material facts; prosecution version was incomplete—Benefit of doubt arising from suppression of truth granted to accused in determining extent of liability. Cited Case: • Ghulam Farid v. The State 2009 SCMR 929 (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-D, 337-F(iii)—Quantum of sentence—Sentence reduction—Appellants (Mehtab, Jehangir, Sajjad, Zafar Iqbal, and Waseem) had been convicted under multiple sections for causing injuries—High Court acknowledged prolonged incarceration and potential rehabilitation—Sentences reduced to periods already undergone or substantially reduced, while monetary liabilities (Daman/Arsh) were upheld—Installment plan for Daman/Arsh allowed under S. 337-X & S. 337-Y, PPC—Court emphasized principles of reformation, deterrence, and proportional sentencing. Cited Cases: • Naseem Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 1771 • Mst. Sughran v. The State 2021 SCMR 109 • Niaz ud Din v. The State 2007 SCMR 206 • State v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi PLD 2017 SC 671 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 382-B—Concurrent sentences—Credit for pre-trial detention—Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C., extended to all convicts—Sentences ordered to run concurrently—Appellants entitled to count incarceration already undergone towards reduced sentences and in default of payment of fine/Daman/Arsh. (e) Practice and Procedure ----Determination of individual culpability in free fight—Each party armed and anticipating violence—Occurrence not premeditated—No clean narrative from either side—Held, in a free fight scenario, individual liability must be determined based on specific roles and injuries inflicted—Prosecution failed to establish exclusive aggression of accused—Case fell within mitigating framework under Exception 4, erstwhile S. 300, PPC.

Summary: Since the criteria for enhancing seats in private medical colleges involve factors like infrastructure faculty and the college's ability to meet the requirements of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) thus the institute is required to meet the minimum standards set by the PMDC. The major factors are: i) Infrastructure Requirements: Adequate facilities such as lecture halls laboratories libraries and hostels must be available to accommodate the increased number of students. ii) Faculty Strength: The college must have enough qualified teaching staff to maintain the student-toteacher ratio. iii) Clinical Training Facilities: Affiliated teaching hospitals must have the capacity to provide clinical training to the additional students. iv) Compliance with Regulations: The institution must adhere to the guidelines and inspection criteria set by the medical council for seat enhancement. Because the enhancement of seat is based upon the requirement of PMDC and until the petitioner institute is inspected by the respondent (PMDC) and analyzed on their criteria no enhancement of seats could be directed by this court and that was the reason that this court directed PMDC to decide the fate of the application of petitioner institute. The matter of the enhancement of the seats is subject to the fulfilment of the requirement which could be considered by the team of PMDC and the matter shall be decided by the competent authority; thus the disposal of petition through impugned order by this Court could neither termed as clerical or arithmetical error floating on the surface of record effecting the interest of petitioner who were admitted by the petitioner; hence the application for review of the judgement could not be entertained. It is by now an established legal precedent that issues which have been previously raised and adjudicated upon cannot be re-agitated or reexamined in review jurisdiction as the review jurisdiction is not a forum for re-hearing or re-arguing matters already considered and decided. Rel: “Sh. Mehdi Hassan Vs Province of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue and 5 others”(2007 SCMR 755).

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Law – Post-Arrest Bail – Further Inquiry---Bail—Grant of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.—Allegations against petitioners pertain to electronic financial fraud and forgery under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ("PECA") and Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("PPC")—No conclusive evidence linking petitioners to offenses—Held, due to lack of sufficient material at this stage, case falls under "further inquiry" as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.—Reliance placed on Mazhar Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 318), Abdul Qadir alias Ali v. The State (2022 YLR Note 22 Sindh).(b) Bailable Offenses – Right to Bail---Statutory rights—Offenses under Sections 3, 4, 13, 14, and 16 of PECA and Sections 420 and 471 of PPC are bailable—Held, in bailable offenses, bail is an indefeasible right of the accused, and there is no provision in the Code permitting cancellation of such bail—Reliance placed on Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478), Alam Zeb v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760).(c) Retrospective Application of Law – Substantive vs. Procedural Amendment---Statutory interpretation—Whether the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 ("Amendment Act")—which converted offenses under Sections 13 and 14 of PECA from bailable to non-bailable—applies retrospectively—Held, amendments affecting substantive rights operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise—Grant of bail in bailable offenses is a substantive right, not a procedural matter—Therefore, the Amendment Act applies prospectively and does not affect cases registered before its promulgation on 29.01.2025—Reliance placed on Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641), Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Muhammad Azam Katper (2002 SCMR 1023), Muhammad Shabbir v. Quaid-e-Azam University (2022 SCMR 487), Mekotex (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (PLD 2024 SC 1168).(d) Bail as a Substantive Right – Change in Bail Status as a Vested Right---Bail jurisprudence—Conversion of bailable offenses into non-bailable offenses through amendment—Held, bail in bailable offenses is an absolute, vested right and cannot be taken away retrospectively—Changes affecting personal liberty are substantive, not procedural, and therefore do not apply retroactively—Reliance placed on Emperor v. Shreekant Pandurang Ketkar (1943 46 Bom. L.R. 50 (FB)), State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Yadav (Indian Kanoon), Alam Zeb v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760), Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478).(e) Non-Prohibitory Offenses – Bail as a Rule---Non-prohibitory clause—None of the offenses in PECA or PPC invoked in the FIR fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.—Held, grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses is a rule, and refusal is an exception—Petitioners incarcerated since 07.11.2024—No risk of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence—Bail granted—Reliance placed on Syed Muhammad Ali Jaferi v. The State (2025 SCP 61), Ahmad Shahzad v. The State (2023 SCMR 679), Muhammad Ajmal v. The State (2022 SCMR 274), Ahmad Khalid Butt v. The State (2021 SCMR 1016).----- Disposition:Criminal Misc. Nos. 10519-B and 10278-B of 2024 allowed – Bail granted.Amendment Act, 2025 held to apply prospectively, ensuring no retrospective impact on offenses registered before 29.01.2025.Petitioners released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds of PKR 1,000,000/- each, with two sureties in like amount.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 497---Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Principle of tentativeness in bail considerationsPetitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302/324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for allegedly assaulting the deceased, Shaukat Hayat, along with co-accused using clubs and firearms. The FIR was lodged with a delay of two days, and the deceased succumbed to injuries after four days. The medical evidence did not establish a clear connection between the alleged assault and the cause of death, as the postmortem report reflected no internal injuries, and the injuries attributed to co-accused were not found at the specified locations. Given the ambiguity in the medical findings and the absence of a recorded statement from the deceased before his demise, the case fell under the ambit of "further inquiry" as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Petitioners, having remained incarcerated for several months with the investigation concluded, were entitled to bail.----Cited Cases:• Mazhar Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 318)• Zeeshan v. The State (2024 SCMR 1716)• Mst. Ishrat Bibi v. The State (2024 SCMR 1528)• Saeed Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2024 SC 1241)• Salman Zahid v. The State (2023 SCMR 1140)• Gul Muhammad v. The State (2023 SCMR 857)• Muhammad Naeem Hassan v. The State (2022 SCMR 523)(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----Ss. 302/324/148/149---Common intention---Medical opinion failing to establish direct causation between injuries and death---EffectThe prosecution's version alleged that the petitioners inflicted club injuries on the deceased, resulting in his subsequent death. However, the postmortem examination revealed that the internal organs were intact, and the injuries observed did not correspond to the allegations made in the FIR. The medical report attributed the cause of death to multiple injuries sustained during a fight, leading to a decline in the deceased’s Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), ultimately resulting in cardiopulmonary arrest. Given the multiple possible medical explanations for such an outcome, including pre-existing health conditions, trauma, and other external factors, the prosecution failed to establish a direct causal link between the petitioners' actions and the fatality. The tentative nature of the medical evidence raised substantial doubts about the petitioners' vicarious liability under Ss. 148/149, PPC, necessitating a deeper probe during trial.(c) Criminal Law---Evidence Act (I of 1872):----Res gestae---Failure to record the deceased’s statement before death---Impact on prosecution caseThe deceased, after the alleged assault, was in a condition to communicate and had provided a history of the incident to the Initial Medicolegal Officer (IMLO), but neither the investigating officer recorded his statement nor did the doctor document his specific allegations. The absence of such direct evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case, as the best possible res gestae evidence remained uncollected. The delayed FIR, coupled with discrepancies in the number of accused initially reported and those later nominated, pointed toward consultation and concoction. The benefit of such lapses and inconsistencies, at the bail stage, was rightly extended to the petitioners.----Cited Case:• Muhammad Atif Naveed v. The State (2024 P Cr. LJ 1421)(d) Criminal Law---Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Cardiopulmonary Arrest:----Assessment of medical evidence---Multiple causes of cardiopulmonary arrest---Scope of judicial scrutiny at the bail stageThe medical literature reviewed by the court highlighted numerous potential causes of cardiopulmonary arrest, including trauma, heart conditions, stroke, electrolyte imbalances, and other non-traumatic medical factors. The deceased’s declining GCS score was relied upon to establish a causal link between injuries and death. However, the medical report did not specify whether the injuries directly led to the fatal event. The court observed that GCS deterioration could result from various non-trauma-related factors, and in the absence of a conclusive medical opinion, the determination of individual or joint liability of the petitioners remained a matter for trial.(e) Bail Considerations:----Delay in FIR---Conclusion of investigation---Incarceration without further investigative needsThe petitioners had been in custody for over eight months, with the investigation concluded and their physical custody no longer required. The court reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention, in the absence of compelling evidence, amounted to a punitive measure rather than a procedural necessity. The uncertainty regarding the petitioners' exact role in the alleged offense, coupled with medical ambiguities, warranted their release on bail, subject to surety bonds.----Disposition:Petitions allowed. Petitioners admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000/- each with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. However, observations made in this order were declared tentative and would not prejudice the trial proceedings.

Summary: When as per ocular account, deceased died in the hospital however column No.24 of the inquest report clearly reflects that the dead body was lying in the area of the complainant, then case of the prosecution is bound to fall like the house of cards and benefit will go to convict.

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 496, 497, 498 & 154---Pre-arrest bail---Foreign offence---Registration of FIR in Pakistan---Double jeopardy---Scope---Petitioner, accused of embezzling funds while employed in Oman, sought pre-arrest bail in Pakistan---FIR alleged that petitioner received cash, a diamond ring, and a bank card from complainant in Muscat, Oman, and instead of fulfilling assigned duties, transferred Omani Riyals into his and his wife’s bank accounts in Pakistan, then absconded---Petitioner argued that registration of FIR in Pakistan amounted to double jeopardy, since complaint had already been lodged in Oman---Held, registration of FIR in Pakistan not barred under S. 188, Cr.P.C., where a Pakistani citizen commits offence abroad---Criminal courts in Pakistan can try such persons if found within the country---Section 403 Cr.P.C. protection (against double jeopardy) only applies where accused has been tried and convicted or acquitted by competent court---No such trial or acquittal/conviction occurred in Oman, thus protection of S. 403 not attracted---Petitioner's objection regarding double jeopardy rejected.(b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 406, 408 & 405---Criminal breach of trust by servant---Misappropriation---Transfer of embezzled funds---Scope---Petitioner, employed as a driver in complainant’s company in Oman, was entrusted with significant cash, jewelry, and bank card---Instead of performing his duty, petitioner misappropriated the entrusted assets and transferred equivalent amount into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan---Held, entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation satisfied ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Ss. 405 & 408, PPC---Petitioner failed to dislodge prima facie evidence of his involvement or establish mala fide on part of complainant---Grant of pre-arrest bail held not justified.(c) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010----S. 3---Proceeds of crime---Offence committed abroad---Transfer of criminal proceeds into Pakistani accounts---Scope---Held, petitioner’s act of transferring embezzled funds from Oman into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan, knowing it was illicit wealth, attracted provisions of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Investigating Officer directed to examine applicability of AMLA provisions for further legal action.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 498 & 497---Pre-arrest bail---Extraordinary relief---Scope---Held, bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession granted only in cases of mala fide or false implication---Where strong prima facie evidence connects accused with offence, and no enmity or ulterior motive is established, bail cannot be granted---Petitioner’s plea of victimization held baseless---Ad-interim bail withdrawn.Disposition: Petition dismissed; ad-interim pre-arrest bail withdrawn.Cited Cases:• Dr. Imran murder case, Islamabad High Court (2022 PCr.LJ 1511)• 2011 YLR 2882• Section 403 Cr.P.C. interpreted in light of foreign prosecution protectionsCited Legislation:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 405, 406, 408• Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 3, 154, 188, 403, 496–498• Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, S. 3

Summary: Bail granted----When accused was related and already known to the complainant as well as injured/victim but not nominated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of injured who was vitally stable at the time of his medical examination then subsequent nomination of the accused through supplementary statements of the complainant and injured require evidential verification during trial of the case. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 497(2) – Post-arrest bail – Further inquiry – Delay in nomination of accused The petitioner was not nominated in the First Information Report (FIR) but was later named through a supplementary statement recorded with considerable delay. The complainant initially stated that two unknown persons committed the offense and only later expressed suspicion against the petitioner. The injured witness also failed to nominate the petitioner in his first statement but later altered his stance. When an accused is not named in the FIR and is subsequently implicated with a delay, the case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Granting bail in such circumstances is justified. Reliance placed on Lal Marjan v. Islam Gul (2021 SCMR 301), Haider Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 629), Husnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914), and Noor Muhammad v. The State (2020 SCMR 1049). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 161 – Evidentiary value of supplementary statements – Requirement of verification during trial Statements of the complainant, injured witness, and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after a considerable delay require evidential verification during trial. A supplementary statement implicating an accused must be scrutinized in light of the delay and its impact on the reliability of evidence. The prosecution's case against the petitioner, at present, falls within the ambit of further probe. (c) Bail – Grant of bail is preferable to wrongful detention – Presumption of innocence It is a settled principle that it is preferable to err in granting bail rather than to err in refusing it, as ultimate conviction can repair a mistaken relief of bail, whereas wrongful detention cannot be undone. Mere detention of an accused for an indefinite period does not serve the prosecution’s purpose if the case requires further inquiry. Bail cannot be withheld as a form of advance punishment. Reliance placed on Chairman NAB v. Nisar Ahmed Pathan (PLD 2022 SC 475). ----Disposition: Post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 300,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Observations made are tentative and will not affect the trial.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497(1), first proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 342---Dacoity, wrongful confinement---Post- arrest bail, grant of---Female accused--- Entitlement to bail---Scope---Under first provisio to S.497(1), Cr.P.C, a woman accused may be released on bail in non-bailable offence---In the present case, record reflected that subsequent FIR pertaining to main offence of recovery had been registered against both female applicants and in that FIR they were granted bail---The lathis were also not recovered from the present applicants at the time of their arrest---Prima facie, the applicants had no active participation/role as per contents of FIR except their mere presence at the spot---Thus, the applicants (female accused persons) had been able to make out a case for grant of bail---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Ghazala v. The State and another 2023 SCMR 887 and Bahadur v. The State and another SBLR 2025 Sindh 193 ref. Sabir Ali Samo for Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, D.P.G. Sindh for the State. Miss Rizwana Jabeen Siddique for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 420---Criminal breach of trust, cheating---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Mala fide on the part of complainant---Allegations against the petitioners were that they misappropriated the golden rings and an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- on the pretext of marriage---According to FIR complainant and his brother got married with the petitioners (sisters) and father of the complainant gave two golden rings to them and Rs.190,000/- for arrangement of marriage ceremony---Bare contents of the FIR did not suggest that entrustment of any property was made to the petitioners, which they misappropriated---Two golden rings and sum of Rs.190,000/- given by father of complainant to petitioners on the eve of their marriage with complainant and his brother could only be considered and treated as gift, as such dispute between the parties happened to be purely of family nature---Complainant claimed that petitioners/accused failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on his part as well as police, which were sine qua non for the grant of pre-arrest bail and those grounds were very much lacking in the present case---However, mala fide being a state of mind could not always be proved by direct evidence---In most of the cases it had always to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case---Both the petitioners were previous non-convicts and they were females, as such social norms of our society did not permit to hand them over into the custody of police, lest the same should put their modesty at stake---Even otherwise, it was not likely to serve any purpose, as nothing had to be recovered at the instance or from the possession of petitioners---Weak and palpable circumstances of the case in hand were sufficient to lead the Court to draw an inference of mal afide on the part of prosecution/ complainant---Petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, in case their arrest was made by police, as such it was appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners---In such circumstances, the petitioners had succeeded in making out a good case for the grant of extra ordinary relief---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to them was confirmed, in circumstances. Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 708; Haji Ghani v. The State PLD 1988 Lah. 507 and Rear Adminral (Rtd.) M.I. Arshad v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 586 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court in any manner. Muhammad Akmal Khan for Petitioners. Khizr Hayat Kamboh for the Complainant. Ghulam Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General, Tahir Khursheed, ASI with record for the State.