Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Fatal road accident---Offences under Ss. 322, 337-G & 279, P.P.C.---Further custody/investigation not required---Petitioner-accused sought pre-arrest bail in case registered under Ss. 322, 337-G and 279, P.P.C., arising out of a road accident wherein three persons had died after a Mazda Coaster allegedly hit their motorcycle in rash and negligent manner---Supreme Court observed that although three innocent persons had expired in the unfortunate incident, the material consideration was whether petitioner was still required for extracting further facts or for further inquiry/investigation---Investigating Officer, when specifically asked by Court, failed to give any plausible reason for further requirement of petitioner and conceded that petitioner was no more required for further inquiry or investigation---Held, in such circumstances no fruitful purpose would be served by refusing pre-arrest bail merely for extracting more facts from petitioner. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 322 & 279---Qatl-bis-sabab and rash/negligent driving---Bail before arrest---Nature of offences---Supreme Court observed that offence under S.322, P.P.C. entails diyat only, whereas offence under S.279, P.P.C. is bailable---When these factors were considered together with the fact that petitioner was no longer required for investigation, petitioner was entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Name of accused not appearing in FIR---Allegation of fake driving licence---Effect---Petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR, which was initially registered against an unknown driver---Allegation regarding petitioner possessing a fake driving licence was treated as a separate matter---Supreme Court observed that even if it was assumed that petitioner had a fake driving licence, such offence was bailable and did not justify refusal of pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Tentative assessment at bail stage---Supreme Court clarified that observations made in bail before arrest order were tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party before Trial Court. Disposition: Petition seeking bail before arrest was converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court; observations were declared tentative and not to prejudice trial.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Azad Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 322 & 34---Qatl-bis-Sabab, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry—Allegations against the accused petitioners was that due to their attack, one person lost his life---Perusal of record revealed that investigating agency after detailed investigation had submitted its report under S.173, Cr.P.C. in the offences under Ss.322 & 34, A.P.C. before the Trial Court---Offence under S.322, A.P.C., though was non-bailable, however, in all the offences where ultimate sentence of imprisonment has not been provided under the Statute, the bail may not be declined as the same would amount to a grave injustice because an accused person cannot be compensated for his said period of detention rather it tantamounts to awarding imprisonment before conviction which is not even provided in case of conviction, hence it further amounts to be a case of double jeopardy---It was alleged by complainant that from the contents of FIR, offence under S.302, APC was attracted---No doubt, a Court can convict an accused person in any offence though not mentioned in the report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. if attracted and proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution at the conclusion of the trial but at a bail stage only the tentative assessment of contents of FIR, statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and evidence recorded in shape of material collected by the police has to be mused---Concession of bail cannot be declined for the reason that some other offence which is not mentioned in the challan is also attracted rather it is beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Court at bail stage---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. 2023 PCr.LJ 1401 and PLD 1983 AJ & K Shariat Court 4 rel. Muhammad Waheed Arif for Petitioner. Sardar M.R. Khan for the Complainant. Syed Faisal Gillani, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 20th October, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 173 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 322, 320, 279 & 427---Quashing of order---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Applicant/complainant sought quashing of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate who accepted the final report under S.173, Cr.P.C in a road accident case after dropping S. 322 P.P.C, which was a non-bailable offence and was mentioned in the FIR filed by the applicant/complainant while accepted the remaining sections of the FIR---Held: although the FIR was lodged under S.322 P.P.C, including certain other Sections of the P.P.C, the Magistrate dropped the said Section from the final report under S.173 of the Cr.P.C.---In the present case, the Judicial Magistrate based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer, the pontification of the prosecutor, and the final challan submitted by the Investigating Officer took note that while the accused had a valid learner's license to operate the motor vehicle, the deceased persons did not have a driver's license to operate the motorcycle---Therefore, it could not be said in the instant case that the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind while passing the impugned order---Matter at hand was a traffic accident case leading to death involving a collision between a motor vehicle operated by an operator having a valid learner's license and a motorcycle being operated by a biker without a valid license/permit---Judicial Magistrate accepted the challan after hearing all the parties and applying his mind, thus there was neither any irregularity nor illegality nor error in law in the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate---Application was dismissed, accordingly. Khalid Hussain and 6 others v. Asif Iqbal and 2 others 2021 PCr.LJ 242 ref. Khadim Hussain v. The State and 12 others PLD 2025 Sindh 12 and 2021 PCr.LJ 242 rel. Majid Ali for Applicant. Nemo for the Respondent No.1/Complainant. Nemo for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 8th September, 2025.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 462-I & 322—Illegal electricity connection through LT/HT poles causing electrocution death—Bail—Rule of consistency and further inquiry. Petitioner, an S.D.O. LESCO, accused of negligence and reckless conduct resulting in the electrocution of a child when storm-broken cable wires carrying high tension current caused fatal shock—Held, co-accused having similar role (Line Superintendent) was already granted pre-arrest bail by Supreme Court; other co-accused were either granted post-arrest bail or declared innocent—In absence of distinguishing features, petitioner entitled to same treatment under rule of parity—Offence involved questions of mens rea and degree of negligence which required determination after trial—Case, therefore, fell within ambit of “further inquiry”—Bail confirmed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497—Grant of bail—Principles—Further inquiry and rule of consistency. Gravity or heinousness of offence by itself not sufficient to refuse bail when evidence raises reasonable doubt as to petitioner’s culpability—Doctrine of further inquiry implies tentative assessment revealing doubt about involvement—Rule of parity demands equal treatment where co-accused with identical role already admitted to bail—Court must consider degree of involvement, not only nature of offence—Bail confirmed subject to cooperation in investigation and trial. (c) Bail—Conditions—Cancellation of bail. Petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation and attend trial; misuse or abuse of concession or non-cooperation would entitle Trial Court to cancel bail—Observations in order declared tentative and not to prejudice merits of case. Disposition—Criminal Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Pre-arrest bail earlier granted confirmed on same terms and conditions—Petitioner to cooperate in investigation and trial; failure to do so may entail cancellation of bail—Order not approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 319, 322 & 34 Criminal Negligence—Medical Malpractice—Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts—Expert Opinion—Role of Regulatory Authorities (IHRA & PM&DC) The prosecution of medical negligence cases under Sections 319 (Qatl-i-Khata) and 322 (Qatl-bis-Sabab) of the Pakistan Penal Code cannot proceed without an expert medical opinion from relevant regulatory bodies such as the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). The determination of medical negligence requires technical analysis by professional experts and cannot be conclusively determined through police investigation or judicial assessment alone. IHRA is the designated authority under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, to assess complaints of malpractice, maladministration, and failure in healthcare services. Similarly, PM&DC holds statutory jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, to evaluate allegations of professional misconduct and negligence. In cases of alleged medical negligence, police must first seek expert opinion from IHRA or PM&DC before registering an FIR or initiating criminal proceedings. The absence of such expert opinion renders the prosecution untenable. ----Cited Cases: Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. v. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, 2011 CLC 463 Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ/EX-officio Justice of Peace Rojhan District Rajanpur, 2022 PCr.LJ 1067 Muhammad Saleem v. The State, 2002 PCr.LJ 216 Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency, 2017 CLD 1198 Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, PLD 2019 Lahore 429 Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh, 2020 CLC 2037 Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal v. Province of Sindh, 2022 YLR 63 ----Disposition: The FIR No.823/23, dated 16.09.2023, registered under Sections 322/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad, was quashed. The pending private complaint under Section 319, P.P.C. was stayed until the receipt of a conclusive expert report from IHRA or PM&DC. (b) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (IHRA) ----Ss. 33 & 34 Medical Negligence—Jurisdiction of IHRA—Complaint Mechanism—Mandatory Expert Opinion Under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, allegations of medical negligence must first be assessed by the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA). The law mandates that complaints concerning medical negligence, malpractice, and maladministration be lodged directly with IHRA, which then conducts an inquiry and issues an expert opinion. The findings of IHRA carry authoritative weight in determining whether criminal negligence occurred. Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or sustained without the support of an expert opinion from IHRA. ----Disposition: Police authorities must seek an expert report from IHRA before registering an FIR or proceeding with criminal prosecution in cases involving allegations of medical negligence. (c) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 (PM&DC): ----S. 44 Disciplinary Jurisdiction—Professional Negligence—Licensing Authority—Expert Assessment The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) is the statutory authority responsible for investigating and deciding cases of professional negligence involving healthcare professionals. Under Section 44, PM&DC has the power to remove or suspend the license of a healthcare professional found guilty of professional negligence or misconduct. No criminal proceedings can proceed without an expert report from PM&DC, confirming negligence or professional misconduct on the part of the accused healthcare professional. ----Disposition: The police must seek expert opinion from PM&DC in cases involving professional negligence before initiating any criminal action. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 561-A Inherent Powers of the Court—Quashing of FIR—Absence of Expert Opinion The court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., quashed the FIR due to the absence of a conclusive expert opinion from IHRA or PM&DC. It was held that police investigation and judicial proceedings in cases of medical negligence must be backed by technical expert analysis. ----Cited Cases: Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq, 2006 SCMR 276 Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmed, 2011 SCMR 1937 Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed, 2000 SCMR 122 Director General FIA v. Kamran Iqbal, 2016 SCMR 447 Pervez Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 1995 MLD 615 Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan, 1995 PCr.LJ 1224 Muhammad Aslam v. DPO, Rawalpindi, 2009 SCMR 141 Zulfiqar Ali v. SHO PS Model Town Gujranwala, 2014 PCr.LJ 487 Muhammad Nawaz v. SHO PS Sabzi Mandi Islamabad, 2017 PCr.LJ 133 ---Disposition: The FIR was quashed, and criminal proceedings were halted pending expert opinions from IHRA and PM&DC. The private complaint under Section 319, P.P.C. was stayed until expert reports were furnished.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S.561-A) – Quashing of FIR – Medical Negligence – Applicability of Special Laws: ----Jurisdiction of Police and Courts in Cases of Alleged Medical Negligence – Role of IHRA and PM&DC. In cases involving allegations of medical negligence, the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) under the PMDC Act, 2022, are the competent forums to investigate and determine negligence by healthcare professionals. FIRs related to medical negligence cannot be directly registered without an expert opinion or report from IHRA or PMDC. Criminal proceedings cannot proceed without an authoritative determination of professional negligence by the relevant regulatory authorities. Held: Police must first seek an expert report from IHRA or PMDC before proceeding under criminal law. FIRs registered without expert input are liable to be quashed. ----Cited Cases: Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. v. PMDC (2011 CLC 463) Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ Rajanpur (2022 PCr.LJ 1067) (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (S.322, 319) – Qatl-bis-Sabab vs. Qatl-i-Khata – Distinction and Applicability: ----Medical Negligence – Interpretation of Sections 322 and 319 PPC. Under Section 322 PPC (Qatl-bis-Sabab) and Section 319 PPC (Qatl-i-Khata), intent plays a crucial role in differentiating the offences. Qatl-bis-Sabab involves an unlawful act without intent, while Qatl-i-Khata arises from mistake of act or fact without intent to harm or kill. In allegations of medical negligence, expert reports from IHRA or PMDC are mandatory to determine whether the act constitutes negligence or falls within the scope of Sections 322 or 319 PPC. Held: Without a clear determination by medical regulatory authorities, courts cannot conclusively determine whether the alleged act constitutes Qatl-bis-Sabab or Qatl-i-Khata. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court (PLD 2019 Lahore 429) Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh (2020 CLC 2037) (c) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (S.33, S.34) – Investigation of Medical Negligence: ----Role of IHRA in Determining Medical Negligence – Procedural Requirements. Under Section 33 of the IHRA Act, 2018, allegations of medical negligence must first be investigated by IHRA. Only after IHRA concludes its inquiry and determines negligence can the matter proceed under criminal law. Police and courts lack the technical expertise to determine medical negligence independently. Held: IHRA is the primary authority to investigate medical negligence claims in Islamabad. Police must refer such matters to IHRA before registering FIRs under PPC. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ Rajanpur (2022 PCr.LJ 1067) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (d) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 (S.44) – Disciplinary Committee – Removal of Medical Practitioners: ----Professional Negligence – Jurisdiction of PMDC in Disciplinary Actions. Under Section 44 of the PMDC Act, 2022, the Disciplinary Committee of PMDC is authorized to hear complaints of professional negligence against medical practitioners and take disciplinary action, including cancellation of licenses. Criminal prosecution should not commence unless PMDC has concluded that professional negligence occurred. Held: PMDC is the primary regulatory authority for professional negligence allegations against doctors. Criminal prosecution should only follow after disciplinary proceedings conclude. ----Cited Cases: Director General FIA v. Kamran Iqbal (2016 SCMR 447) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (e) Special Law vs. General Law – Prevalence of IHRA Act, 2018 over PPC: ----Conflict Between Special and General Laws – Applicability of IHRA Act. In cases where special law (IHRA Act, 2018) and general law (PPC) conflict, the special law prevails over general law. IHRA is specifically enacted to address medical negligence, while PPC generally deals with bodily harm and criminal liability. Held: IHRA Act, 2018 prevails over PPC in matters of medical negligence. Police cannot bypass IHRA procedures by directly registering FIRs without obtaining expert reports. ----Cited Cases: Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency (2017 CLD 1198) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (f) Inherent Jurisdiction (S.561-A Cr.P.C) – Quashing of FIR in Medical Negligence Cases ----Powers of High Court to Quash FIR in Exceptional Circumstances. The High Court has inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs in extraordinary circumstances, particularly where proceedings are initiated without following the due process outlined in special statutes like IHRA Act or PMDC Act. In the present case, FIR No.823/23 was quashed as it lacked the prerequisite expert opinion from IHRA or PMDC. Held: FIRs alleging medical negligence cannot proceed without expert verification. High Courts can quash FIRs in such cases under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCMR 276) Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmed (2011 SCMR 1937) (g) Stay of Proceedings in Private Complaint Pending Expert Report: ----Role of Private Complaints in Medical Negligence Cases. In cases where a private complaint alleging medical negligence has been filed, proceedings must remain stayed until expert reports from IHRA or PMDC are obtained. Without technical validation of negligence, courts cannot proceed with private complaints under criminal statutes. Held: Proceedings on private complaints alleging medical negligence must await expert determination by IHRA or PMDC. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal v. Province of Sindh (2022 YLR 63) Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh (2020 CLC 2037) -----Disposition: The FIR No.823/23 registered under Sections 322/34 PPC was quashed. The private complaint under Section 319 PPC remains stayed until an expert report from IHRA or PMDC is submitted. The police and complainant must approach IHRA and PMDC for expert determination. No order as to costs.

Summary: ----Ss. 13, 19 & 33---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 322---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission Conduct of Business Regulations, 2016---Medical negligence by a medical practitioner---Immunity---Overriding effect---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner/accused sought quashing of FIR by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Validity---Allegations against the petitioner/accused was that she, being a medical practitioner, negligently and carelessly attended to wife of complainant during her delivery process, as result whereof she died and consequently the baby she had conceived was also lost---In the present case, the complainant had leveled the allegations of negligence against the petitioner and a special law i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission Act, 2015,was available to deal with the matter but he, without exhausting the remedy under the Act, resorted to criminal proceedings which could not be sustained in view of the bar contained in S. 19 of the Act, according to which no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings related to provision of private health care service shall lie against a health care establishment except under the Act---When there is a conflict between a special law and a general law, the former would prevail over the latter---Thus, mode of the proceedings conducted on the report of complainant were illegal being contrary to the provision of the Act, 2015---Complainant in the present case, being an aggrieved person because of death of his wife due to alleged negligence of the petitioner in her hospital, had not made any complaint to Commission in the mode and manner as prescribed under S. 13(1) of the Act---Complainant reported the matter to local police on which an inquiry was conducted and thereafter the FIR in question was registered against her in total disregard of the Act which was in the field at the relevant time followed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission Conduct of Business Regulations, 2016 (the Regulations)---In said Regulations the entire procedure for filing of complaints had been given---Matter in hand, pertaining to death of a lady at delivery stage, fell in clause (a) of S. 5 of the Regulations categorizing the act of medical negligence, mal-administration malpractice or any other act or omission resulting in compromised healthcare service on the basis of severity---Thus, complainant had not agitated the matter before the proper forum and the proceedings so conducted by police culminating into registration of the FIR were against the relevant law---Petition was allowed and FIR under S. 322, P.P.C., registered against the petitioner was quashed. F.I.A. through Director General, FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265; Muslimabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Through Secretary v. Mrs. Siddiqa Faiz and others PLD 2008 SC 135; Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 2023 SC 661; Syeda Ayesha Subhani v. The State and others PLD 2023 SC 648; Dr. Malik Muhammad Yaseen v. Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge Kabirwala and others 2017 PCr.LJ Note 192; Shahid Khan and others v. The State through Station House Officer (SHO) and others 2017 YLR 2419; Lady Dr. Nafeesa Saleem and another v. Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and others PLD 2022 Lah. 18; Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sargodha and others PLD 2019 Lah. 429; Mian Sultan Ali Nanghiana v. Mian Nur Hussain PLD 1949 Lah. 301; Khair Muhammad Sahowal and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department and others 2022 YLR 63; Riaz Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Rojhan District Rajanpur and others 2022 PCr.LJ 1067; Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. Through Chairman and C.E.O v. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) and others 2011 CLC 463; Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCMR 1192; Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276; Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam PLD 2004 SC 298; Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabd and others 1994 SCMR 2142; Marghoob Alam and another v. Shamas Din and another 1986 SCMR 303; Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Hayat Khan and others 1980 SCMR 311; Shaikh Muhammad Yamin v. The State 1973 SCMR 622; Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Baluchistan PLD 1971 SC 677; Dr. Manzoor Hussain Malik v. The State and another 2021 PCr.LJ 844; Faisal Khan v. The State and another 2020 PCr.LJ 471; Mehmood Rangoonwala and others v. Furqan Ali Mustafa and others 2019 PCr.LJ 1634; Qayum Nawaz and others v. District Police Officer, D.I. Khan and others 2018 PCr.LJ 1345; Muhammad Ayyaz and others v. Station House Officer, Police Station Tarakhal and others 2018 YLR 78; Masood Anwar v. The State and another 2017 PCr.LJ 1466; Sheikh Arif Ur Rehman and another v. Station House Officer, Police Station Khuram, Tehsil and District Karak and others 2017 MLD 2064 and Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and others PLD 1976 SC 317 ref. Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investment Agency and others 2017 SCMR 1218; Dr. Malik Muhammad Yaseen’s case 2017 PCr.LJ 192; Riaz Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Rojhan District Rajanpur and others 2022 PCr.LJ 1067; Sultan Ali Nanghiana’s case PLD 1949 Lah. 301; F.I.A through Director General, FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265 and Muslimabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Through Secretary v. Mrs. Siddiqa Faiz and others PLD 2008 SC 135 rel. Hazrat Rahman for Petitioner. Hafiz Ashfaq Ahmad, Assistant A.G. for the State. Khwaja Shahid Rasool for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2024.

Summary: 1. Quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 322 PPC on the basis of allegation that she, being a medical practitioner, negligently and carelessly attended the pregnant lady during her delivery process as result whereof the patient died and consequently the baby she had conceived was also lost. The pivotal question for resolution before this Court is to determine the legal status of the FIR under Section 322 PPC registered on the report made by complainant to local police instead of making complaint under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Healthcare Commission Act, 2015.2. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Healthcare Commission Act, 2015, being a special law, has overriding effect over general law in view of Section 33 of the Act ibid. The private hospital run by husband of petitioner falls within the definition of ?healthcare establishment? under clause (i) of Section 2 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Healthcare Commission Act, 2015. Complainant has leveled the allegations of negligence and maltreatment against the petitioner and the aforesaid special law was available to deal with the matter but he, without exhausting the remedy under the Act ibid by way of filing complaint under Section 13 of the Act to Health Care Commission, resorted to criminal proceedings by reporting the matter to local police on the basis whereof FIR was registered which cannot sustain in view of the bar contained in Section 19 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Healthcare Commission Act, 2015 according to which no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings related to provision of private health care service shall lie against a health care establishment except under the Act. The FIR, being registered without lawful authority, was quashed leaving the complainant at liberty to seek his remedy from the proper forum in accordance with law.3. Although, according to Clause (a) of Section 5(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission Conduct of Business Regulations, 2016 notified on 5th April, 2016, criminal proceedings may be initiated under the Pakistan Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of severe negligence but the same exercise can only be done by the Health Care Commission by referring the matter for criminal proceedings after entertaining the complaint filed under Section 13 of the Act.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 322, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 149 Qatl-bis-Sabab—Conviction under Section 322 PPC—Scope and requirements—Contradictory evidence—Failure to establish unlawful act—Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. The appellant was convicted under Sections 322, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) PPC for the alleged wrongful death of Habib ur Rehman and injuries caused to Noor Muhammad. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimonies of PW-2 (complainant) and PW-3 (eye-witness), both of which contained material contradictions and inconsistencies with the contents of the FIR and medical evidence. PW-2 was not an eyewitness but relied on hearsay, while PW-3's version of events did not align with the medical reports. The FIR described an accident involving an unknown motorcyclist as the cause of the incident, yet the appellant and others were charged under Section 322 PPC, which requires an unlawful act causing death. The prosecution failed to prove any unlawful act by the appellant, nor was there evidence linking the appellant to the motorcycle collision. Furthermore, the injured motorcyclist was not produced as a witness, nor was he charged, violating Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by convicting the appellant under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) PPC, which were not part of the original charge. It is a settled principle of law that a conviction under Section 322 PPC requires clear and concrete evidence establishing an unlawful act, which was absent in the present case. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Muqadas Khan (PLD 2022 SC 99) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted.

Summary: [Offence punishable under section 322, PPC does not fall within the probibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.] (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497(1) & (5)---- Grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses—Absence of exceptional circumstances—Judicial discretion. Petitioner, a member of the Eagle Squad (law enforcement agency), was accused of firing at a vehicle during routine duty, resulting in injuries to the complainant and the death of his cousin—Allegations were framed under Ss. 302, 324, and 34, PPC—Supreme Court held that the facts of the case did not support a charge of Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) under S. 302, PPC—Court determined that the offense prima facie fell under S. 322, PPC (Qatl-bis-Sabab), which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), CrPC—Since S. 319, PPC (Qatl-i-Khata) is bailable, the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of right unless exceptional circumstances were present—Following precedents in Tariq Bashir v. State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Muhammad Tanveer v. State (PLD 2017 SC 733), and Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488), Court reaffirmed that in non-prohibitory offenses, bail is the rule and refusal is an exception—No exceptional circumstances, such as risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offense, were found to justify denial of bail—Bail granted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302, 322, 319, 324, 34---- Nature of offense—Qatl-bis-Sabab distinguished from Qatl-i-Amd—Legal implications for bail. Supreme Court examined the intent behind the petitioner’s act and found no enmity, provocation, or deliberate intent to kill—Petitioner, along with other Eagle Squad members, had attempted to stop the complainant’s vehicle, which did not comply—Firing at the vehicle resulted in injuries and an unintended fatality, leading to the classification of the offense as Qatl-bis-Sabab (S. 322, PPC) rather than Qatl-i-Amd (S. 302, PPC)—Since S. 322, PPC is outside the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), CrPC, the petitioner was entitled to bail—Court reiterated that in such cases, intent and circumstances must be carefully evaluated before imposing the higher charge of intentional murder. (c) Judicial Review & Discretion---- ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 189---- Binding effect of Supreme Court precedents—Duty of High Courts to exercise discretion judiciously. Supreme Court found that the Balochistan High Court failed to exercise judicial discretion properly—Court observed that denial of bail in non-prohibitory offenses without applying the rule-exception test constitutes an error of law—It reiterated that Supreme Court rulings on bail are binding under Art. 189 of the Constitution—Failure to apply the correct legal standard in bail matters leads to arbitrary detention and misuse of judicial discretion—High Court’s order was set aside for failing to justify bail refusal based on any legal exception. (d) Bail Conditions & Expedited Trial---- ----S. 497(5), CrPC---- Bail granted—Right of prosecution to seek cancellation in case of misuse. Petitioner was granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety—Court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously—Clarified that if the petitioner misuses the bail concession or causes delay in the trial, the prosecution may move for cancellation of bail under S. 497(5), CrPC—Observations in the bail order were tentative and would not influence the trial’s final outcome. Disposition: Appeal allowed—High Court order set aside—Post-arrest bail granted. Petitioner admitted to bail upon furnishing surety of Rs. 100,000/-. Trial court directed to expedite proceedings—Prosecution allowed to seek bail cancellation in case of misuse. Supreme Court reaffirmed that bail in non-prohibitory offenses must not be denied arbitrarily unless exceptional circumstances exist.