Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 411 & 34---Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 126---Theft, receiving stolen property, common intention, intentional acts, omissions and negligence of public functionaries---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Per prosecution case, the applicant had purchased stolen property i.e. leads/ wires of T/motors Nos.4, 5, 6, cut off from traction motor channel from co-accused, which belonged to Pakistan Railways---Since such act on the part of the co-accused endangered and humen, therefore, after thorough investigation, the police reached the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence in terms of S.126 of the Pakistan Railways Act, 1890---Evidence collected during investigation revealed that the applicant had not removed or stolen the property in question nor was the member of such gang who actually had committed the offence---Mere allegation against the applicant was that he allegedly purchased said stolen property from co-accused and after recording evidence, if prosecution was successful to prove its case, it would fall within compass of S.411, P.P.C---Bare perusal of said Section of law showed that before securing involvement against the applicant, the prosecution was required to prove that the applicant was not only found in possession of the stolen property belonging to Pakistan Railways but he did so with particular intent or knowledge that he would endanger the safety of the persons traveling by train on particular track---In other words in addition to the actual removal or theft of certain property, the prosecution had to prove the requisite intent or knowledge on the part of the applicant that he was likely to endanger the safety of any person or persons travelling by train on particular track---Mere purchase of said property from co-accused would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the applicant in terms of the provision contained under Pakistan Railways Act, 1890 unless the prosecution further proved it by way of evidence---As per available direct or circumstantial material, no evidence had been brought on record that the applicant did so with intent or knowledge that he was likely to endanger the safety of the persons travelling by the particular train---Prosecution witnesses in their respective statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., had not, in any way connected the applicant with actual removal/theft of the property---In other words, it was an admitted fact that there was no material available on the record to establish that the applicant had either been actually seen by any one removing the said property or seen in suspicious circumstances near the place of occurrence carrying such stolen property immediately after the occurrence---Applicant was not nominated in FIR as an accused, however, he was implicated in this case on disclosure made by the co-accused, during investigation---Upon recovery of alleged stolen property from his shop applicant was arrayed as an accused---Under the circumstances, mere recovery of stolen articles from the applicant and in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, it could safely be held that the offence committed by the applicant fell under S.411, P.P.C. and not under S.126 of Pakistan Railways Act---Only presumption which, therefore, could be raised against the applicant was that he was found in possession of stolen articles which he must have received knowing them to be stolen or otherwise and same was yet to be proved by the prosecution whether the applicant had received or purchased the same knowingly or in good faith---Applicant was not participant of co-accused while committing the offence of theft, however, was found in possession of certain stolen goods and such accusation against him was yet to be established by the prosecution by recording evidence of its witnesses and then the Trial Court had to determine the same against him whether he would be tried for both Sections of law or only for the offence of receiving stolen property---Under the circumstances, the applicant had successfully made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Rizwan v. State 2022 MLD 716; Shahid Ahmed v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ Note 89; Muhammad Tanveer v. The State PLD 2017 SC 733; Arsalan Masih and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1152 and Muhammad Shoaib v. The state and another 2022 SCMR 326 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order aretentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial. Qurban Ali Malano, Israr Ahmed Shah and Syed Naimat Ali Shah for Applicant. Muhammad Aslam Jatoi, Assistant Attorney General for the State.

Summary: Bail granted --- Facts:Munawar Bibi (the petitioner) sought pre-arrest bail under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, concerning her involvement in a case registered under Section 379 PPC at Police Station Kazi Ahmed.The allegation against the petitioner was that she, along with her co-accused, committed theft of two tires along with rims of a tractor trolley belonging to the complainant.---Issues:Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case.Whether there were grounds for granting pre-arrest bail.---Decision:The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.It was observed that the delay in lodging the FIR and the petitioner's advanced age were significant factors.Citing previous cases and legal principles, the Court held that liberty is a precious right and bail should be granted except in exceptional circumstances.The petition was converted into an appeal, and the impugned order was set aside.The Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Court's Analysis and DecisionObservations: The court noted the delay in the FIR, the general nature of allegations, and the potential for a dispute over land possession, suggesting a possible false implication.Precedents and Legal Principles: The court referenced several past rulings to support the notion that pre-arrest bail can be granted based on the circumstances and merits of a case, emphasizing the constitutional right to liberty.Decision: The petition was converted to an appeal, allowed, and the previous order denying bail was set aside. The petitioner's pre-arrest bail was confirmed.---Further Inquiry Justified: Given the dispute over land possession, the delay in FIR registration, and the similarity in allegations with other co-accused who have either been declared innocent or granted bail, the court found it appropriate to inquire further into the petitioner's involvement.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Court's Analysis and DecisionObservations: The court noted the delay in the FIR, the general nature of allegations, and the potential for a dispute over land possession, suggesting a possible false implication.Precedents and Legal Principles: The court referenced several past rulings to support the notion that pre-arrest bail can be granted based on the circumstances and merits of a case, emphasizing the constitutional right to liberty.Decision: The petition was converted to an appeal, allowed, and the previous order denying bail was set aside. The petitioner's pre-arrest bail was confirmed.---Further Inquiry Justified: Given the dispute over land possession, the delay in FIR registration, and the similarity in allegations with other co-accused who have either been declared innocent or granted bail, the court found it appropriate to inquire further into the petitioner's involvement.

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Sections 497 & 498—Pre-arrest bail—Principles and grounds—Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR alleging theft, criminal intimidation, and other offenses. The court held that pre-arrest bail serves as a check on police powers and protects individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly when incriminating material is insufficient or circumstances indicate mala fide intent by the complainant or the police. (b) Criminal law—Delays in FIR registration ----Significance of delay—The court observed that an unexplained delay of over a month in lodging the FIR raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations, making the case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C. (c) Criminal law—Evidence and investigation ----Lack of corroborative material—The court noted that no crime empties or specific details regarding the alleged weapons were mentioned in the FIR, and the petitioner, a 75-year-old individual, was not tagged with any specific incriminating role. The absence of material evidence undermined the credibility of the allegations. (d) Precedents on pre-arrest bail ----Relief granted in the absence of sufficient material—Relying on Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 708), the court reiterated that pre-arrest bail can be granted if there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused’s involvement in the alleged offense, even without independent proof of mala fide intent by the complainant or police. (e) Criminal law—Prohibitory clause ----Nature of offenses and right to bail—The court emphasized that the alleged offenses, including Sections 379 and 506(ii) PPC, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., entitling the petitioner to bail as a matter of right. Disposition: The petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed, and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted was confirmed. The petitioner was directed to furnish fresh bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Cited Case: • Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 708).

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The petitioner, Babar Hussain, sought leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against the Lahore High Court's order dated 22.01.2020, which declined his petition for post-arrest bail in FIR No.106/2018.The FIR alleged theft of dry batteries from a Ufone Tower and the murder of the petitioner's co-accused, Attaullah, during the incident.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail based on the circumstances of the case.The relevance of the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases to the grant of bail.---Holding/Reasoning:The court considered the circumstances of the case, where the petitioner and his co-accused were alleged to have committed theft and were confronted by security staff, leading to the death of the co-accused.The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations were of a generalized nature and that the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases should not disentitle him from bail, especially since he had not been convicted in any of those cases.The court agreed that mere involvement in criminal cases is not sufficient grounds to withhold bail, citing precedent cases.Given the two versions of events presented?one in the crime report and another in the statement of the deceased and the widow's application to the District Police Officer?the court found it appropriate to grant further inquiry, falling under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).Considering the petitioner's right to liberty, the court granted leave, converting the Criminal Petition into an appeal, and allowed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Against judgment dated 26.6.19 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate -West, ICT, whereby respondent no.2 to 9 have been acquitted in case FIR No.70 dated 25.2.12 U/S 379/427/148/149/337 -H(ii) PPC P.S Tarnol (a) Legal Principles Relating to Acquittal Appeals: The legal principles governing appeals against acquittal were reaffirmed, including the presumption of innocence, the reluctance of appellate courts to interfere unless the acquittal is clearly unjustifiable, and the need for overwhelming proof to interfere with a trial court’s acquittal (referencing: Muhammad Shahbaz Ali Khalid v. The State [2019 SCMR 2012] and Hakim Khan v. The State [2013 SCMR 698]). (b) Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Cases: It was emphasized that in criminal cases, where the prosecution's evidence is fraught with doubts and discrepancies, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The acquittal of the respondents was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of corroborating evidence and the untrustworthiness of key witnesses. (c) Evidentiary Gaps and Failure of the Prosecution: The judgment underscored that the prosecution’s failure to produce material evidence—such as the recovered arms, vehicle, and forensic confirmation of the aerial firing—led to the acquittal. The witnesses' testimony was discredited due to their familial relations with the complainant, rendering them unreliable. Additionally, the absence of private witnesses and documentary evidence undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. (d) Importance of Substantiating Claims with Evidence: The case highlighted the necessity of supporting claims with documentary and physical evidence, particularly in land ownership disputes. The complainant’s admission of uncertainty about the land's ownership and lack of documentary proof weakened the case. (e) Role of Non-Production of Case Property: The prosecution’s failure to produce recovered case property (pistols, vehicle) before the trial court further weakened its case. The non-production of crucial evidence was a critical factor in the acquittal, as it failed to substantiate the allegations of theft and aerial firing. (f) Acquittal of Respondent No. 9: The acquittal of respondent No. 9 was upheld, noting that no specific allegations or evidence were presented against him to substantiate his involvement in the crime. -----Disposition: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused. The judgment of the learned Trial Court was upheld, as it was not found to suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

Summary: Bail denied---Background: In Criminal Miscellaneous No.762-B of 2011, the petitioner, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under various sections including section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. The case involved allegations of theft of gas through an illegal connection with the main gas pipeline, resulting in significant financial loss. ----Issues: Whether the offences committed fall within the purview of terrorism, as defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act, thereby affecting the eligibility for bail. Whether the seriousness of the offence warrants bail, considering the potential impact on national resources and public utilities. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court examined the allegations laid out in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), emphasizing the gravity of the offence, which it deemed to constitute a terrorist act under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The act of damaging the supply line of a national resource, in collusion with government officials, was deemed to be serious and had significant consequences. The court further noted that the appointment of a gazetted police officer to investigate the matter underscored its sensitivity. Given the seriousness of the offence and its potential impact on public utilities, the court concluded that the case did not merit bail. The involvement of individuals from the SNGPL (Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited), in collusion with the petitioner, in causing substantial loss to public resources necessitated diligent efforts for their apprehension. Thus, the bail petition was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: The court referred to section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

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) Criminal Procedure—Order of Discharge at Remand Stage—FIR under Section 379 PPC—Magistrate’s Jurisdiction—Premature Evaluation of Evidence. Discharge of accused at initial remand stage in FIR under Section 379 PPC without completion of investigation is premature and legally flawed. The Magistrate erroneously assumed that co-ownership alone negates criminal liability for theft without ascertaining actual/physical possession or dishonest intent as required under Section 378 PPC. —Order of discharge held illegal—Investigation allowed to proceed. Held: Investigation must be completed before evaluating merits; discharge based solely on co-ownership assumption disregards statutory requirement of dishonest removal from possession. Cited Case: Zafar Iqbal Malik v. SHO, P.S. Lilla (2010 MLD 738) (b) Pakistan Penal Code—Sections 378 & 379—Essential Ingredients—Possession and Mens Rea. Theft under Section 379 PPC necessitates dishonest intention and removal of property from another’s actual physical possession without consent. Co-ownership does not bar prosecution where unauthorized removal from another co-sharer’s long-standing exclusive possession is alleged. —Magistrate failed to consider complainant’s exclusive possession substantiated by revenue record. (c) Criminal Law—Magistrate’s Role in Remand Proceedings—Scope and Limitations. At remand stage, the Magistrate’s function is limited to overseeing procedural legality. Magistrate cannot assess civil ownership claims or decide criminal liability before investigation concludes. —Held: Premature adjudication of civil ownership at remand stage is beyond Magistrate’s authority. (d) Constitution of Pakistan—Article 199—Writ Jurisdiction—Interference in Premature Discharge Order. High Court under Article 199 set aside order of discharge which curtailed lawful investigation. Discharge order was passed without notice to complainant, without considering revenue report confirming complainant’s possession. —Petition under Article 199 allowed to secure proper investigation process. ------Disposition: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order of discharge dated 27.02.2025 set aside. Matter remanded to learned Judicial Magistrate for proceedings strictly in accordance with law. Investigating Officer directed to continue investigation independently and expeditiously.