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: Background: The appellant, filed a complaint at Police Station City Kotli on 28.07.2010, alleging that Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Razzaq, the respondents, were cutting a tree from his land and, when confronted, they abused and threatened him. The police registered an FIR under sections 34, 447, and 427 of the APC, and the case proceeded to the Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class Kotli. After necessary proceedings, the trial court acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The appellant then filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed on 05.03.2019. Consequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court and the High Court properly appreciated the evidence. 3- Whether the acquittal of the respondents was consistent with the law and facts of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The appellant contended that the prosecution had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt through the statements of eyewitnesses. However, the trial court and the High Court found contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, leading to the respondents' acquittal. --Appreciation of Evidence: The trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence, referring to and discussing the statements of all seven witnesses. The conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt was upheld by the High Court. Both courts concluded that the prosecution's evidence contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies. --Consistency with Law and Facts: The trial court's judgment extended the benefit of the doubt to the respondents, a decision upheld by the High Court. The judgments were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence and adhered to legal principles. The appellant failed to demonstrate any significant misreading or non-reading of evidence that would justify overturning the acquittal. ----Citations/Precedents: The principle that acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence. The requirement of strong and legal grounds to recall an acquittal order.

Summary: Bail granted----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)—Post-Arrest Bail—Grant of Bail in Non-Bailable Offense. (a) Bail—Considerations for Grant—Circumstantial Evidence. ----Accused petitioner was implicated in a case under sections 342/447/448, 395/506(ii) PPC, and 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging armed robbery and extortion. The investigation recovered only a club (Danda) from the petitioner, despite allegations of being armed with a Kalashnikov. The circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient for denying bail at this stage, as its credibility would depend on trial evidence. (b) Parity Principle in Grant of Bail. ----Co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail by the Court, which served as a relevant factor in extending the same relief to the petitioner, ensuring consistency and fairness in judicial discretion. (c) Accused’s Background—Relevant Factors. ----The petitioner was a first-time offender with no prior convictions or criminal record. Additionally, the investigation was concluded, and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. ----Result: Bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds in the amount of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427/109, 447, 147, 148 & 149---Mischief causing damage to the amount of five lac rupees, criminal trespass---Transfer ofcase to ordinary court---Offences against accused were of simple nature like trespass ordamage to a property of the opponent, which were punishable not more than two years---Record had shown that a dispute of personal nature existed between the parties for thedetermination of ownership of leased area---For cases of terrorism, falling under Ss.6 & 7of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, there must be not only Scheduled Offence under S.6 ofthe Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but also mens rea for creating intentional sense of terror orfear or insecurity in the society---Cases having background of personal enmity and takingprivate revenge, did not fall within the ambit of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,1997---Special Judge, was not justified to reject application of accused for sending matterto the Court of Sessions Judge---Order of Special Judge was illegal as matter in questionwas within the domain of the regular courts---Cases were ordered to be withdrawn fromthe court of Special Judge and transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate concernedfor disposal in accordance with law, in circumstances.

Summary: Sec: 447 PPC (Trespass) Scope and Acquittal under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. discussed----Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 447 & 147---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417(2-A) & 249-A---Criminaltrespass---Appeal against acquittal---Complainant who claimed himself owner of property inquestion lodged report against respondents/accused persons alleging that they had committedoffence of criminal trespass under Ss.447/147, P.P.C.---Ownership and possession of theproperty was in dispute, between the parties---Disputed land originally belonged torespondents/accused persons; and it was not confirmed that the same was purchased by onewho then transferred the same to the complainant---Prima facie, a symbolic possession wasgiven to the complainant while factual or actual possession of the property still seemed notclear---Suit over the ownership of the property in dispute was pending before the civil court---Acquittal order by Judicial - Magistrate under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., deserved no interference---Entrance of legally entitled person could not hold him responsible for his role or any case wasmade out, falling under S.447/147, P. P. C.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- - Arts. 13 & 185(3) - Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403 - Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 447 - Leave to appeal was granted to consider the ple 13-3-1989) and said acquittal remained 'unchallenged till the decision against them (appellants) in the Con6itutional petition (17-4-1990) filed by complainant in that behalf. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- - S.403 - Aurefois acquit, plea of - Retrial of an offence in which a person who having once been tried as accused stands finally acquitted is not permitted - Judgment by Trial Court having attained finality same accused cannot be retried for the same offence. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- - S. 447 - Trespass - Parties who were closely related to each other had a land dispute which was settled through respectables in 1956; implementation of such settlement though took a long time but possession of the property was delivered to respondents on 30-10-1986 - Respondents made a complaint for an offence under S. 447, P.P.C. on 17-11-1986 stating therein that despite the delivery of possession on 30-10-1986 the appellants/accused had committed the offence of trespass on 15-11-1986 on the same property - Complaint in question was enquired into and was found false and was filed as not proved-Despite the failure of respondents complaint was revived for purpose of review and a fresh inquiry/trial commenced - Appellants challenged the review/revival of the criminal case as illegal and without jurisdiction - Court which heard the matter rejected the appellants' plea - Appellants then filed a revision before the Government which was allowed on 21-5-1987, with observation that the possession had already been delivered and there was no sense in re-opening the same - Order of the Government was challenged by the respondents in *the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction which upheld the plea of the respondents that original complaint filed for offence under S. 447, P.P.C. had not been properly tried by a proper forum, therefore, same required to be re-investigated and retried and same was sent back to the Trial Court "for fresh proceedings"-Held, parties were wrongly advised to launch and pursue futile criminal proceedings as matter which stood settled by the respectables in 1956, got unsettled by the Law Enforcing Agencies-Instead of again opening the settled issue which was evidenced by delivery of possession through proper documentation, the proper course would have been to get the demarcation done or redone either through official Agencies or through the elders or respectables which even now could be done as Islamic mode.-[Administration of justice].

Summary: PLJ 1992 CrC (Peshawar) 307 [Abbottabad Bench] Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) – Section 249-A read with Section 561-A: The case involved the challenge to the acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the trial court dismissed the charges due to lack of evidence. Challenge to Acquittal: The petitioner challenged the acquittal, but nothing was shown to be wrong with the impugned judgments of the lower courts. The Magistrate, after reviewing the case, found the charge groundless and determined that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of the offense. Held: No errors were pointed out in the judgments passed by the lower courts that would justify interference by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction. As such, the petition was dismissed. [Pp. 308-309] A, B. -----Background: The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, alleging various offenses, including trespass, theft, and criminal misappropriation of property, under Sections 447, 406, 427, 379, 384, and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complaint was filed before a Magistrate in Mansehra. After hearing the case, the Magistrate acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), considering that the charges were groundless. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra, which was also dismissed. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the High Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal orders of the lower courts. -----Issues: 1- Whether the acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. was justified. -----2- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts. -----Holding, Reasoning, and Outcome: --Acquittal under Section 249-A Cr.P.C.: The High Court reviewed the evidence and proceedings of the lower courts and found that the Magistrate had correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, after evaluating the available evidence and hearing both the prosecution and the defense, concluded that the charges were baseless and that there was no likelihood of the accused being convicted. The petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence or argument to show that the decision of the Magistrate was erroneous. --Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.: The High Court recognized its inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., which allow it to intervene in cases to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. However, the court noted that there was no material on record indicating any miscarriage of justice or procedural error in the judgments of the lower courts. The High Court found that both the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge had acted within their legal authority and followed proper legal procedure. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no error in the judgments of the lower courts that would warrant interference. The acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 249-A Cr.P.C.: Grants power to a Magistrate to acquit the accused at any stage of the trial if the charge is groundless and there is no probability of conviction. Section 561-A Cr.P.C.: Provides the High Court with inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice. PLD 1966 SC 178: The Supreme Court ruled that non-compliance with Section 200 Cr.P.C., such as failure to examine the complainant on oath, is a curable irregularity under Section 537 Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions, as there was no error or miscarriage of justice.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 307, 447. 448, 148 & 149-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Leave to appeal granted to convicts to examine the evidence on which their conviction was based and the correctness of the decision of High Court whereby their appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed with slight modification. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 307, 447, 448, 148 & 149-Appreciation of evidence-Police party had gone to assist to get the land vacated by force and had encircled during the early hours of the day houses of the accused persons, fully prepared with tear-gas shells etc. and it was not with the purpose of simply arresting them and allowing the law to take its own course with regard to the offence reported under Ss. 447 & 448, P.P.C.-In the course of forcible eviction, not only this but a very large number of residents of the adjoining villages turned up and some shots were fired though not as numerous as alleged by prosecution-Hurling of stone also took place-Held, in such a situation, it would have been difficult for the witnesses who had appeared to identify individually each of them particularly when they had no contact with them in the negotiation earlier taking place-On such evidence and in such a background of events accused could not be convicted on the capital charge-Conviction and sentence of accused persons was set aside.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-.- S. 561-A read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 447-Quashment of proceedings-Criminal trespass, offence of-Taking of peaceful possession of immovable property without consent of persons even in its possession-Would not amount to criminal trespass but only to civil trespass-Petitioners charged for digging of earth from land claim over which in dispute and subject-matter of a civil litigation-Conviction of petitioners under S. 447, P. P. C., held, not possible, in circumstances-Proceedings quashed. Baboo Bhoy for A.-G. for the State.

Summary: Municipal Administration Ordinance (X of 1960), Ss. 83(2) & 127 read with Basic Democracies Order [P. O. No. 18 of 1959], Art. 98-Protection of action taken in good faith Municipal employee bona fide removing encroachment under S. 83(2) of Ordinance Entitled to protection of S. 127 of Ordinance read with Arts. 97 & 98 of Order 18 of 1959-Criminal proceedings under Ss. 148 & 447/149, P. P. C. Quashed However, as regards offences alleged against employee under Ss. 323 & 355 said to have been committed at spot-Matter left to be determined by Magistrate in accordance with procedure laid down in P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 27-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A. M. Subbiah v. T. Ramacharlu A I R 1939 Mad. 604; Sukhdeo v. Emperor A I R 1934 All. 978; Matiur Rehman Dewan v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 21; Syed Ahmad v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 27; Dilbar Hussain v. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad P L D 1956 Lah. 865; Amin-ul-Haque v. Abdul Wahab P L D 1956 Dacca 250; Dhannjay Ram Sharma v. Messrs Uppadaya and others A I R 1960 S C 745; Ismail and 2 others v. The State and another P L D 1970 Kar. 261; Ghulam Muhammad v. Mumtaz Khan P L D 1967 S C 317 and H. H. B. Gill and another v. The King A I R 1948 P C 128 ref. Respondent in person. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for A.-G. for the State.