Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 452, 436, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy a building, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury below the right chest of deceased---During the course of investigation, the petitioner claimed a specific plea that he only tried to rescue the children and had not participated in the occurrence---Said version of the petitioner was also verified by the Investigating Officer in its findings incorporated in daily case diary, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not participate in the crime, therefore, the petitioner's case became one requiring further inquiry into his alleged guilt---Furthermore, considering the outcome of the investigations, the petitioner's case presented two conflicting versions; one stated by the complainant in the FIR and the other revealed by the Investigating Officer---Which version was correct was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Apart from the above, the crime empties which were secured from the crime scene were found shot from one crime weapon which did not belong to the petitioner---Principal perpetrator of the crime committed suicide at the crime scene---Nothing was recovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner---Investigation had been completed and the petitioner was no more required for the purpose of any further investigation---Petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025 and had been in custody since, without significant progress in the trial---In such state of affairs, the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petitioner was behind the bars and was no more required for further investigation---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2012 SCMR 1137; Saif Ullah v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1458; Najeeb Ullah v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 1241 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 1914 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court. Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioner. Fakhar Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State with Naveed S.I.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 436, 427, 504, 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief by fire and explosive substance, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, cancellation of---Record reflected that after registration of case the accused moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Trial Court, which granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail to him and later on his interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed vide order dated 19.07.2024, which was impugned---Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties, as disclosed in the memo of FIR as well as Trial Court's order---Furthermore, the strong and cogent reasons were required for recalling of bail granting order, if the bail granting order was perverse or disregarded to the principle regulating grant of bail---Applicant/complainant was unable to demonstrate the principles governing the cancellation of bail---As per tentative assessment, the grounds for cancellation of bail as agitated by the complainant could only be thrashed out at the time of recording evidence of the parties---Since the trial was yet to begin thus no fruitful result would come out to recall the pre-arrest bail order as impugned---No cogent grounds had been established by the applicant to warrant the cancellation of bail---Order granting bail was founded upon settled legal provisions, and thus, no interference was justified---Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 rel. Abdul Rasheed Abro for Applicant/Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025. Order Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J .--- The applicant / complainant through the captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent 1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Badin in Cr. Bail Application No.1007 of 2024 (Re-Maqsood v. The State), arising out of Crime No.356 of 2024 registered at Police Station Badin, under Sections 324, 436, 147, 148, 149, 504, 427, P.P.C vide order dated 19.07.2024. 2. The facts of the case are already stated in the memo. of this application, therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same for the sake of brevity. 3. The learned counsel contended that the grant of bail to the accused/respondent No.1 contravenes established principles of law, as a specific role has been explicitly assigned to the respondent/accused. He further argued that there exists compelling evidence on record, which unequivocally links the respondent to the alleged offense. He urged that the respondent / accused after granting bail by the trial Court is misusing the concession of bail by issuing threats to the applicant / complainant. He further submitted that the respondent / accused was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role, however, the learned trial Court by ignoring the same and without considering the record has granted bail to the accused. Additionally, he submitted that following the grant of bail, the accused resorted to intimidatory tactics, coercing the complainant into withdrawing from the case. He requested that bail of the accused may be recalled. 4. Having meticulously considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, thoroughly examined the case material, and scrutinized the impugned order issued by the Trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge delivered the following operative findings: "Apparently, applicant/ accused person is nominated in FIR with the role that he made fire which hit to tractor. The main contention of learned defence counsel that no any person sustained any injury; apparently from perusal of FIR, no any person sustained any injury. The other main plea of learned defence counsel that there is civil nature dispute between the applicant's father and one Shakoor; such version was not rebutted by learned complainant's counsel. The other main plea of learned applicant's counsel that as per FIR, only one tire of tractor was shown to have been burnt. As per photographs provided by complainant, one cot was shown to have been burnt. S-far plea of learned complainant's counsel that applicant/ accused is involved in two other cases; admittedly, each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. When as per FIR no any person sustained any injury and no photograph showed the tractor was burnt. Moreover, when during the course of arguments the complainant was asked which tire of tractor either front or rear was damaged, he failed to reply satisfactorily. Moreover there is apparently dispute between the parties over the land, therefore, case of the applicant/ accused needed further inquiry." 5. Record reflects that after registration of case the accused moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court, who granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail to him and later on his interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed vide order dated 19.07.2024, which is impugned. Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties, as disclosed in the memo of FIR as well as trial Court's order. Furthermore, the strong and cogent reasons are required for recalling of bail granting order. For instance if the bail granting order is perverse or disregard to the settled principle regulating grant of bail. The learned Counsel for the applicant / complainant is unable to demonstrate the above settled principle governing the cancellation of bail. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar (2009 SCMR 1202) has observed as under:- "6. It needs no reiteration that considerations for the grant of bail are quite distinct from the consideration for cancellation of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancelling the same, as held by this Court on a number of occasions. It is to be seen as to whether order granting bail is patently, illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Considering the case of the respondent for grant of bail on the above touchstone, we are of the view that learned High Court has rightly reached the conclusion and no exception can be taken to it. The respondent is on bail since 26-1-2009 and he is not shown to have misused the concession of bail. He is entitled to remain on bail " 6. In my tentative assessment, the grounds for cancellation of bail as agitated by learned Counsel for the complainant could only be thrashed out at the time of recording evidence of the parties. Since the trial is yet to begin thus no fruitful result will come out to recall the pre-arrest bail order as impugned. 7. Upon careful deliberation, it is concluded that no cogent grounds have been established by the applicant to warrant the cancellation of bail. The order granting bail, issued by the learned Sessions Court, was founded upon settled legal provisions, and thus, no interference is justified. In such circumstances, the instant application for cancellation of bail is dismissed in limine. JK/A-36/Sindh Application dismissed.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 01.02.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl. A. No. 62 of 2011 and S.C.R. No. 01-T of 2011). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 120-B, 302, 324, 435 & 436---Criminal conspiracy, qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing damage to property---Re-appraisal of evidence---Suicide bombing---Location of prosecution witnesses--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was alleged to be a suicide bomber wearing explosive jacket and was apprehended from the place of occurrence where two suicide bombers had already detonated themselves---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---Validity---Suicide bomber, who had detonated explosives, had also used pellets which had caused severe injuries to several innocent victims in a large radius---There was no explanation as to how complainant and six officials accompanying him, and the accused and two unidentified co-accused remained unharmed---Presence of witnesses at crime scene was not proved through unimpeachable evidence, nor the fact that accused was apprehended in the manner as was deposed by prosecution witnesses---Accused and complainant, who were 30 paces from the suicide bomber when the explosion took place, could not remain unscathed, and in such a situation of extreme distress and commotion, no one could identify or apprehend another person wearing a jacket laden with explosives---It was an incident in which impact and its harm was seen much further than thirty paces---Prosecution did not bring on record any evidence to establish that accused was a member of proscribed organization or that he was motivated by or was working for a terrorist group---Prosecution failed to discharge its obligation of proving guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences handed down by Trial Court and upheld by High Court and acquitted the accused from all charges framed against him by extending benefit of doubt to him as of right---Appeal was allowed. Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048; Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731; Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 and Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749 rel. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt---Criminal jurisprudence—Prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Appellant convicted for terrorism-related offenses, including murder, under Sections 120-B, 302, 324, 435, and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860—Trial Court and High Court convicted and sentenced appellant to death—Prosecution’s case hinged on circumstantial and testimonial evidence—Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt through unimpeachable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence—Where a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as of right, not as a matter of concession—Reliance placed on Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1948), Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731), Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490), Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).(b) Terrorism Offenses – Unproven Terrorist Affiliation---Anti-Terrorism laws—Prosecution’s failure to establish appellant’s affiliation with a terrorist group—No evidence presented to prove that appellant was a member of a proscribed organization or had a terrorist motive—Explosives allegedly recovered from a location in Akora Khattak were not conclusively linked to appellant—Held, mere allegations of terrorism without substantive evidence are insufficient for conviction—Reliance placed on Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749).(c) Forensic Evidence – Unreliable Explosive Analysis---Evidentiary standards—Explosive analysis and forensic examination—Whether District Civil Defence report on explosive materials was reliable—Prosecution failed to send the alleged suicide jacket and grenades for analysis to a recognized forensic laboratory—No evidence on record to establish that District Civil Defence, Rawalpindi, had the expertise or facilities to conclusively examine explosives—Held, forensic evidence must be conducted by a legally recognized forensic institution to be admissible—Reliance placed on Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146).(d) Contradictions in Prosecution’s Case – Witness Testimony---Inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative—Appellant allegedly apprehended at the crime scene wearing a live suicide jacket and holding a hand grenade—Prosecution witnesses failed to explain how the jacket was removed and defused in the absence of trained personnel—No documentary proof provided to confirm that prosecution witnesses were on duty at the crime scene—Testimonies of key witnesses were contradictory regarding the crime report's registration, timing, and sequence of events—Held, inconsistencies in testimony raise serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s claims—Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731).(e) Failure to Establish Appellant’s Role in Terror Attack---Circumstantial evidence—Appellant allegedly apprehended after two suicide bombers detonated explosives, killing 69 people—Prosecution failed to prove that appellant attempted to detonate explosives or posed an imminent threat—Crime scene dynamics suggested that immediate apprehension of an individual wearing an explosive vest, without sustaining injuries, was improbable—Held, mere presence at the crime scene does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2021 allowed – Conviction set aside.Death sentence not confirmed – Appellant acquitted of all charges.Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant as of right.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The incident involved a house fire on the night of March 7/8, 2013, resulting in the deaths of a woman and her three daughters. The woman's brother filed a report alleging that the fire was deliberately set by her husband, motivated by his desire to marry his sister-in-law. The accused was charged under Sections 302/436 of the APC (Pakistan Penal Code) for murder and arson. The District Criminal Court found the accused guilty, sentencing him to death and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, along with fines and compensation. ---Issues: 1. Whether the accused deliberately set the fire to murder his wife and daughters. 2. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient and credible to support the conviction. 3. Whether procedural irregularities and alleged police misconduct affected the fairness of the trial. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court upheld the lower court's conviction and sentencing. The court reasoned that the evidence, including the accused's extra-judicial confession and witness testimonies, was substantial and credible. Procedural objections raised by the defense were deemed insufficient to overturn the conviction. The defense's arguments regarding fabrication, police misconduct, and evidence tampering were not convincing enough to merit a reversal. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the death penalty and other sentences imposed by the trial court. ----Citations/Precedents: Abdul Aziz vs. The State [2006 MLD 674] Nazeer Ahmed vs. The State [2003 YLR 2339] Ghous Bux vs. Saleem and others [2017 PCr.LJ 836] Muhammad Sharif vs. The State [1975 PCr.LJ 889] Muhammad Israr vs. The State [2002 PCr.LJ 1072] Murtaza and others vs. The State and others [1996 PCr.LJ 358] Jermy Frankel, General Manager, Avari Hotel, Lahore vs. The State [2003 PCr.LJ 75] Binyameen Nasir alias Papoo vs. The State [1994 PCr.LJ 1475] Imran Saeed vs. The State [2001 PCr.LJ 1365] Jan Alam vs. The State and another [2004 PCr.LJ 68] Muhmmad Parveaz vs. The State [1995 MLD 1519] Liaqat Bahadur and others vs. The State [PLD 1987 FSC 43] Nasrullah vs. State and another [PLJ 2011 Cr.C, (Lahore) 148] Ahmad Sher and another vs. State [PLJ 1995 FSC 109] Ch. Muhammad Younas Arvi and others vs. Abdul Aziz Chaudhary and others [2011 SCR 50]

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure – Cancellation of Bail – Principles for Cancellation of Bail: The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused in FIR No. 482/2018 under sections 436, 506-II, 148, 149 PPC, alleging misuse of bail, threats to witnesses, and tampering with evidence. The Court noted that the principles for the grant of bail differ from those for its cancellation. Cancellation of bail requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as a patently illegal or erroneous order. The Court referred to precedents, particularly "The State v. Rafiq Ahmad Channa" (2010 SCMR 580), which set out factors to be considered when granting bail. The Court found no evidence of misuse of bail or tampering with evidence, thereby upholding the original decision to grant bail. (b) Criminal Procedure – Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility The Court highlighted an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence regarding threats made to prosecution witnesses. No application was filed for these allegations, weakening the credibility of the petitioner’s claims. The delay was considered significant in assessing the merit of the petitioner's allegations. (c) Criminal Procedure – Precedents on Bail – Scope of Bail Grant The Court referred to the principles established in prior cases such as "The State v. Khalid Mehmood" (2006 SCMR 1265) and "Ahsan Akbar v. The State" (2007 SCMR 482), which state that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, and that once bail is granted by a competent Court, only strong and exceptional grounds can lead to its cancellation. ----Disposition: The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, as the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s allegations and upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge to grant bail to the respondents. The observations made in the judgment were deemed to have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 427 & 436-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345-Mischief causing damage, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house-Compromise having been arrived at between the parties, complainant moved application before the Trial Court for acquittal of petitioners/accused persons on the basis of compromise-Said application was dismissed by the Trial Court-Validity-Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compoundable, and application under S.345, Cr.P.C. was in-applicable to compound the same, but both the parties had amicably settled down all their differences and had resolved to lead rest of their lives in peace and tranquillity-Earlier, husband of the complainant was charged for murder by the petitioners' side, which case was also compromised-As a quid pro quo of compromise in the said murder case, complainant and her family entered into compromise with the petitioners in the present case-Section 436, P.P.C., was not compoundable, but non-compoundability of a section of law, should not be read in isolation, but it should be read in the background of each case and beneficial interpretation should be given-When the parties in the case had earnestly decided to live in peace by forgetting all their differences then it would be a need of the hour to acquit the petitioners in the present case on the basis of compromise, despite the non-compoundability-Application for acquittal of the petitioners, which was moved by the respondent/complainant herself, had shown that she herself was eager in acquittal of petitioners/accused persons-Impugned judgment was set aside, and the petitioners, were acquitted in the case against them-Accused were set free. Sabir Shah A.A.-G. for the State.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/436/427, P.P.C.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Bail-Sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused with the commission of the alleged offence was lacking-Investigation had been conducted in a haphazard manner and no evidence worth the name could be collected against the-accused making a prima facie case against them-Documentary evidence was ambiguous and was not got verified from the concerned quarter authenticity and genuineness of which was yet to be ascertained-Till such determination the concession of bail could not have been withheld in absence of any other incriminating material-Matter fell within the domain of further inquiry-Incident no doubt, was gray, leading to a tragic loss of precious human lives, but no iota of evidence had come on record against the accused-Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Nazir v. State 1978 SCMR 285; Falak Sher v. State 1979 SCMR 103; Arbab Ali v. Khamiso 1985 SCMR 195; Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul 1985 SCMR 382; Najeeb Gul v. Khalid Khan 1989 SCMR 899; Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq PLD 1985 SC 182; Muhammad Amir v. State 1985 SCMR 565; Manzoor and 4 others v. State PLD 1972 SC 81; Bashiran Bibi v. Nasar Ahmad Khan PLD 1990 SC 83; Pakistan Oil Mills v.. Sale Tax Officer 1969 SCMR 175; Mst. Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11 and Abdul Haq v. State 1979 SCAR 254 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497-Bail-Principle-Onus is on the prosecution to disclose those reasonable grounds existing on record which connected the accused with the commission of the alleged offence of examination by the Court in bail matter. Manzoor and 4 others v. State PLD 1972 SC 81 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- -Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Grant or refusal of-Principles-Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere in matters involving exercise of discretion, but in exceptional cases where the interest of justice demands and it is evident that either a provision of law has been misconstrued or wrongly applied or the decision is contrary to the principles laid down by Supreme Court as well as those governing the safe administration of criminal justice, then it is the Constitutional obligation of Supreme Court to set the matter right. Bashiran Bibi v. Nasar Ahmad Khan PLD 1990 SC 83; Pakistan Oil Mills v. Sale Tax Officer 1969 SCMR 175; Mst. Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11 and Abdul Haq v. State 1979 SCMR 254 ref.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 436-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted to examine evidence afresh particularly on the question of identification of accused persons. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 436-Presidential Amnesty Order dated 7-12-1988-Conviction of accused persons under S. 302, P.P.C. (death sentence) and under S. 436, P.P.C.-Occurrence took place when sentence prescribed for murder under S. 302, P.P.C. was death or transportation for life and transportation for life was to be reckoned as equivalent to transportation for 20 years-Presidential Order dated 7-12-1988 provided that all death sentences awarded by Military or other Courts up to 6-12-1988 were to be commuted to imprisonment for life-Held, persuant to the order of commutation of sentences passed by the President of Pakistan the sentences the convicts were to undergo under S. 302, P.P.C. would be 25 years' R.I.-Sentences awarded to convicts under S. 436, P.P.C. in addition to the sentences awarded to them under S. 302 were to run concurrently and sentences to be served by the convicts were not to exceed 25 years' R.I. in aggregate-Such sentences, however, would be without prejudice to the sentences awarded to convicts in lieu of non-payment of fine which sentence would be in addition to the sentence of 25 years' R.I. Muhammad Yunus v. The State 1981 SCMR 422; Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 152 and Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State 1986 SCMR 1627 ref. Per Rustam S. Sidhwa, J. (contra)-???????????????????????????????????????????? Muhammad Khan's case PLD 1986 Lah. 294; Bashir and others v. State Cr.M.P. No. 15-R of 1988 in Cr. A. No. 144-R of 1979 ref.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 436-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted to examine evidence afresh particularly on the question of identification of accused persons. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 436-Presidential Amnesty Order dated 7-12-1988-Conviction of accused persons under S. 302, P.P.C. (death sentence) and under S. 436, P.P.C.-Occurrence took place when sentence prescribed for murder under S. 302, P.P.C. was death or transportation for life and transportation for life was to be reckoned as equivalent to transportation for 20 years-Presidential Order dated 7-12-1988 provided that all death sentences awarded by Military or other Courts up to 6-12-1988 were to be commuted to imprisonment for life-Held, persuant to the order of commutation of sentences passed by the President of Pakistan the sentences the convicts were to undergo under S. 302, P.P.C. would be 25 years' R.I.-Sentences awarded to convicts under S. 436, P.P.C. in addition to the sentences awarded to them under S. 302 were to run concurrently and sentences to be served by the convicts were not to exceed 25 years' R.I. in aggregate-Such sentences, however, would be without prejudice to the sentences awarded to convicts in lieu of non-payment of fine which sentence would be in addition to the sentence of 25 years' R.I. Muhammad Yunus v. The State 1981 SCMR 422; Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 152 and Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State 1986 SCMR 1627 ref. Per Rustam S. Sidhwa, J. (contra)-???????????????????????????????????????????? Muhammad Khan's case PLD 1986 Lah. 294; Bashir and others v. State Cr.M.P. No. 15-R of 1988 in Cr. A. No. 144-R of 1979 ref.