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: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 299 to 338---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Offences against human body---Provisions of Ss. 299 to 338, Penal Code, dealing with offences against human body, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as they: (a) do not provide for Qisas in cases of Qatl-al-Amd (deliberate murder) and Jurh-al-Amd (deliberate hurt) as prescribed by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah; (b) lack provision for Diyat in cases of Shibh-ul-Amd and Khata for both murder and hurt; (c) do not recognize Sulh (compromise) between parties based on agreed compensation in cases of Qatl and Jurh; (d) fail to allow the offender to be pardoned by the victim or heirs in cases of Jurh or Qatl, respectively; (e) do not exempt non-pubert or insane offenders from the death penalty in murder cases; (f) do not define distinct categories of Qatl and Jurh with their prescribed punishments according to Islamic injunctions. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provision of S. 109, making abettors liable to the same punishment as the principal offender regardless of varying degrees of abetment, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 54, Ss. 401-402-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provisions empowering the Central or Provincial Governments to commute the death sentence in cases of Qatl-al-Amd or Jurh-ul-Amd are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, as they violate Huqooq-ul-Ibad (rights of individuals). (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 345---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provision restricting the composition of offences to specified offences against the person, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 381---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Failure to allow heirs of a murder victim to pardon the offender or enter into a compromise, even at the last moment before execution, held repugnant to Islamic injunctions. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 337 to 339-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provisions allowing tender of pardon to an offender without consulting the victim or heirs of the victim in cases of Qatl or Jurh, held repugnant to Islamic injunctions. (g) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----S. 133---Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Art. 16---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Section 133 of the Evidence Act, prescribing conditions for using uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, is no longer applicable due to its repeal by the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. ------ Disposition: The provisions declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions shall cease to have effect from 23rd March 1990. Appeals relating to personal grievances dismissed or referred to appropriate forums. Remaining appeals partially allowed as per findings on specific provisions.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 339-A: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302/460 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)---S. 17(4) Acquittal of approver---Conditions for acquittal under S. 339-A, Cr.P.C.---Petitioner, after being tendered pardon and agreeing to become an approver, sought acquittal on grounds that he had complied with the conditions of pardon. However, as per S. 339-A, Cr.P.C., an approver can only be acquitted after the prosecution’s evidence is taken, and not prior to the conclusion of the trial. The petitioner’s subsequent change of position, withdrawing his confessional statement, did not entitle him to acquittal. Held, the trial court rightly disallowed the petitioner’s request for acquittal, as he remained an accused until the trial's conclusion. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 337 & 343: Bail and detention of approver---The petitioner, having been tendered pardon under S. 337, Cr.P.C., was required to remain in custody until the trial’s completion, as per the provisions of S. 339-A and S. 337(3), Cr.P.C. His status as an approver did not exempt him from detention during the trial. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 245 & 366: Trial procedure for approver---The trial of an accused person, including an approver, must proceed in accordance with the full trial process, including the recording of prosecution evidence and final judgment. The approver, even after tendering a confession, remains an accused until the conclusion of the trial. ----Disposition: Revision petition dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 561-A---Quashing of criminal proceedings---Compromise between the parties---Accused had been charged under Ss. 452, 337-A(ii), and 337-F(i), PPC, but later, the complainant and injured victim swore affidavits confirming they had entered into a compromise and had forgiven the accused in the name of Almighty Allah---Compromise pertained to the entire case and was not restricted to bail---Accused had already been granted post-arrest bail based on this compromise, and the complainant had undertaken to seek acquittal at the appropriate stage---Held, a compromise in a criminal case, once acted upon, cannot be resiled from---Both offenses were compoundable, and the legal principle that a compromise, once given effect, remains valid was well established in jurisprudence---Criminal case against petitioners was quashed on the basis of compromise. ----Cited Cases: • Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah (1998 SCMR 466) • Barish Ali v. Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmed (PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1009) • Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1107) • Syed Sabir Hussain Shah v. Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah (1995 MLD 563) ----Disposition: Petition allowed; criminal case quashed, and petitioners acquitted based on compromise.

Summary: FIR quashed ---- In Criminal Revision No. 39439 of 2024, Sanam Javed (the petitioner) sought the quashing of an order dated 14.06.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), Gujranwala. The petitioner was accused in FIR No. 823/23 dated 10.05.2023, involving multiple charges under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997. The petitioner contended that she was not initially named in the FIR and was implicated based on the disclosure of a co-accused, Karim Hasan, more than a year after the registration of the case. ----Issues: 1) Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: Whether the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the period of physical remand granted by the ATC had already elapsed, and the petitioner had been sent on judicial remand. ---2) Validity of the Physical Remand Order: Whether the order granting physical remand of the petitioner was justified and in accordance with legal standards. ---3) Evidentiary Basis of Implication: Whether the statement of the co-accused/approver was sufficient to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences. ---4) Malafide Intentions and Ulterior Motives: Whether the repeated implication of the petitioner in multiple cases was done with malafide intentions and ulterior motives to curtail her liberty. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The court emphasized its broad jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to correct manifest illegality and prevent miscarriage of justice. It held that the petition was not infructuous despite the elapse of the physical remand period because the petitioner sought discharge from the case. The court referenced: Mushtaq Ahmad vs. The State (PLD 1966 SC 126) Dr. Waqar Hussain vs. The State (2000 SCMR 735) ----Validity of the Physical Remand Order: The court scrutinized the process of granting physical remand and concluded that the remand was granted in a mechanical manner without considering whether the petitioner’s presence was genuinely required for the investigation. The court highlighted the need to balance personal liberty and investigational rights, referencing the principles laid out in the Rules and Orders of Lahore High Court, Lahore. It found that the physical remand was unjustified given the lack of incriminating evidence beyond the co-accused’s statement. ----Evidentiary Basis of Implication: The court found that the statement of the co-accused/approver, recorded after 22 days of physical remand, was not voluntary and lacked corroborating evidence. The statement was considered inadmissible as it violated the proviso to Section 337(1) Cr.P.C., which prohibits tendering pardon in cases of hurt or qatl without the victim’s or heirs' permission. The court referenced: Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 814) -----Malafide Intentions and Ulterior Motives: The court noted a pattern of malicious prosecution against the petitioner, involving her in multiple cases with similar allegations to prolong her detention. It held that such actions violated her fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, 10, and 13 of the Constitution, and amounted to malicious persecution. The court criticized the executive and police for repeatedly implicating the petitioner in new cases on the same charges. It referenced: Muhammad Bashir vs. SHO, Okara Cantt. (PLD 2007 SC 539) Ammad Yousaf vs. The State (PLD 2024 SC 273) Muhammad Sultan vs. Muhammad Raza and others (2020 SCMR 1200) ----Citations/Precedents: Mushtaq Ahmad vs. The State (PLD 1966 SC 126) Dr. Waqar Hussain vs. The State (2000 SCMR 735) Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 814) Muhammad Bashir vs. SHO, Okara Cantt. (PLD 2007 SC 539) Ammad Yousaf vs. The State (PLD 2024 SC 273) Muhammad Sultan vs. Muhammad Raza and others (2020 SCMR 1200) ----Outcome: The court accepted the criminal revision petition and quashed the order dated 14.06.2024, discharging the petitioner from FIR No. 823/23. It ruled that the investigation against the petitioner was initiated with malafide intentions and lacked incriminating evidence. The court ordered the petitioner’s immediate release and criticized the executive and police for their highhandedness and disregard for judicial orders. The court also issued a directive to circulate the judgment among judicial officers, deputy commissioners, and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, for guidance and compliance.