Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sections 147, 148, 324, 34, 337-D, 169, 164, 497 – Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 – Sections 21-L, 6/7 – Bail After Arrest – Rule of Consistency – Further Inquiry —The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) for alleged involvement in an incident of firing and stone-throwing during a procession near Siddiqia Mosque, Gilgit. —The petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and was implicated based on CCTV footage, but no witness identified him from the footage, nor was the location of the CCTV camera disclosed during the investigation. —The alleged extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate despite repeated remands. —No evidence indicated that the stone-throwing by the petitioner resulted in any injury. —During the investigation, co-accused Aitizaz Hussain (who allegedly fired a weapon and had a pistol recovered from him) was granted bail, and the petitioner’s case was found to be on better footing. —The petitioner had been in custody since 06.09.2022 and was no longer required for further investigation. —The rule of consistency applied, entitling the petitioner to post-arrest bail. (b) Bail – Grounds for Grant – Prolonged Detention Without Trial —The trial had not yet commenced despite the petitioner being in custody for over a year. —Prolonged detention without trial violates principles of justice, especially when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the prosecution cannot provide a timeline for completing the trial. (c) Judicial Observations – Tentative Findings —The Court clarified that observations made in the bail order were tentative in nature and would not prejudice either party during the trial. —The admissibility and veracity of the CCTV evidence and extra-judicial confession would be determined during the trial. ----- Disposition: Criminal Appeal accepted. Post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. Petitioner released if not required in any other case.

Summary: The petitioner sought the recovery of her mentally disordered brother, Syed Qadeer Abbas, from the alleged illegal custody of Respondents No.3 to 8. The petitioner claimed that these respondents intended to take control of Qadeer Abbas's 19 kanals 09 marlas land in Chak No.543/E.B. The court issued notices to Respondents No.3 to 8 and directed the SHO, Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari, to produce Qadeer Abbas.The SHO reported that Qadeer Abbas had been missing for 4/5 years, and the petitioner had applied for his death certificate in May 2022, stating that he died on 15.05.2022. The SHO provided details about the inheritance mutation, land transactions, and a conflict between the petitioner and Respondent No.4. FIR No.185/2023 was lodged on 25.02.2023 by Respondent No.4.After considering the SHO's report and confronting the petitioner's counsel, the court found that the petitioner had filed the petition with false assertions and submitted a false affidavit. The court held that the petitioner had rendered herself liable to criminal prosecution and contempt of court.The judgment cited various legal precedents to underscore the imposition of costs for false or vexatious claims, including cases such as Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421], Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [(1995) 3 SCC 757], B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association and others [(2006) 11 SCC 731], K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [(2008) 12 SCC 481], Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [(2012) 4 SCC 307], ABCD v. Union of India and others [(2020) 2 SCC 52], and Qazi Naveed ul Islam v. District Judge, Gujrat, etc. (PLD 2023 SC 298).The judgment also referenced sections 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as well as sections 147, 148, 491, and 547 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). It emphasized the court's authority to impose costs in criminal matters and cited specific rules from the Lahore High Court Rules & Orders governing the imposition of costs in habeas corpus petitions.In line with these legal principles, the court invoked its inherent powers and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner was held to have incurred criminal liability and was deemed liable for contempt of court, for which separate proceedings would be initiated.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging an order dated 15.04.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, in a case involving multiple charges under Sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 447, 511, 427, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was granted post-arrest bail but was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,35,000 as 'arsh' (compensation for injury) and furnish bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000. The petitioner contended that imposing the condition of depositing the 'arsh' for the release on bail was contrary to the law. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the imposition of a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit the 'arsh' amount for bail is legally valid. ----- 2) Can a criminal court impose such conditions while granting bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or other applicable laws? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Imposition of Condition for Bail: The Court held that under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it is permissible for a criminal court to impose conditions for granting bail. Subsection 4-A of Section 401 allows a criminal court to impose conditions related to the liberty of a person or any liability upon them. While Chapter XXXIX of the Cr.P.C., which deals with bail, does not explicitly mention such conditions, Section 401 grants broad powers for conditional release in cases where it serves the interests of justice. ----- Precedents Supporting Conditional Bail: The Court referred to multiple precedents where conditions for bail were upheld. The Court emphasized that such conditions are lawful as long as they are reasonable and not illegal. In cases like Shahid Sultan Durrani v. The State (2021 SCMR 827), conditional bail was granted based on the accused’s commitment to pay the disputed amount. The Court observed that conditional bail has been recognized and is in practice under various laws, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Section 21-D) and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (Section 51). ----- Outcome: The Court concluded that the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, requiring the petitioner to deposit the 'arsh' amount for bail, was lawful and in line with established legal principles. Since the petitioner had already accepted the condition by depositing the amount and securing release on bail, his challenge to the condition was deemed untenable. The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit. ----- Citations/Precedents: Haji Maa Din and another v. The State (1998 SCMR 1528) Ali Akhtar v. The State and another (2013 P Cr. L J 487) Attaullah v. Abdur Razaq and another (PLD 2002 SC 534) The State v. Muhammad Umar alias Chotoo (2003 P Cr. L J 216) Shahid Sultan Durrani v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 827) Faizan Rehmat v. The State (2021 P. Cr. L J 235) Maryam Nawaz Sharif v. Chairman NAB (PLD 2020 LHR 205)

Summary: Abducted negated the allegations leveled in the FIR ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B/452/ 496-A/ 147/ 148/ 149---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking awayor detaining with criminal intent a woman, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons,unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---No case of abduction was made out---Effect---Allegation against accused persons was that they came to complainant's house while armedwith weapons and forcibly abducted his sister/alleged abductee---Alleged abductee recordedher statement before the Magistrate to the effect that she left her house with her own consentand free-will and contracted marriage with one of the accused---Trial Court rejected bailapplication of accused persons on the grounds that alleged abductee was still in their custody;that her Nikah was disputed and she had not been recovered, and that offence alleged fellwithin the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Alleged abductee recorded herstatement on oath before the Magistrate, wherein she stated that she had voluntarily gonewith one of the accused and contracted valid marriage with him of her own choice---Allegedabductee negated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.---Magistrate allowed alleged abducteeto go with her husband after recording her statement---No case of abduction was made outagainst accused persons and they were admitted to bail accordingly. Ayaz Ali v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 31 and Muhammad Mateen v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 240ref.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Vicarious liability of the accused would be determined at the trial after recording evidence --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34/147/148/149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt tocommit Qatl-i-amd, rioting---Bail, grant of---Accused were not nominated in the F.I.R.---Complainant and two eye-witnesses had implicated the accused in this supplementarystatements--No other incriminating evidence was so far available to prima facie connect theaccused with the commission of the offence---Vicarious liability of the accused in the crimewould be determined at the trial after recording evidence---Case against accused was one offurther inquiry---Nothing incriminating had been recovered from the accused during policeinvestigation---Accused could not be detained in jail for indefinite period and bail could notbe withhold as a punishment---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.PLJ 1999 SC 727; 1997 PCr.LJ 494; 2000 PCr.LJ 1096; 1996 SCMR 1654; 1980 SCMR 784;1994 SCMR 2051; 1997 SCMR 445; 1990 SCMR 346 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1532 ref.

Summary: PLJ 2006 CrC (Quetta) 25 Present Fazal - ur - Rehman J HAJI NASRULLAH and 12 others - - Petitioners versus MOLVI MUHAMMAD ABDUL HALEEM and 8 others - - Respondents Crl Misc Q No 38 of 2003 decided on 2392004 Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - Ss 147 561 - A - - Dismissal of complaint under S 147 CrPC by Magistrate on the ground that dispute between parties being purely of civil nature did not warrant to invoke provisions of S 147 CrPC - - Sessions Judge was not justified to set aside such order of Magistrate - - Where any civil dispute is brought before Criminal Court proceedings before such Court would be illegal and the same should be quashed by High Court - - Sessions Judge having observed that respondents having approached civil Court and status quo order having been issued was not justified is setting aside order of Magistrate - - Such order passed by Sessions Judge would amount to above of process of law - - Impugned order being not sustainable was quashed [P 29] A PLD 1996 SC 541 1998 PCrLJ 240 ref Mr Abdul Wasay Tareen Advocate for Petitioners Mr Jamal Khan Mandokhail Advocate for Respondents Mr Ghulam Mustafa Mengal Addl AG for StateJudgement Result:Order accordingly