Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 496, 497, 498 & 154---Pre-arrest bail---Foreign offence---Registration of FIR in Pakistan---Double jeopardy---Scope---Petitioner, accused of embezzling funds while employed in Oman, sought pre-arrest bail in Pakistan---FIR alleged that petitioner received cash, a diamond ring, and a bank card from complainant in Muscat, Oman, and instead of fulfilling assigned duties, transferred Omani Riyals into his and his wife’s bank accounts in Pakistan, then absconded---Petitioner argued that registration of FIR in Pakistan amounted to double jeopardy, since complaint had already been lodged in Oman---Held, registration of FIR in Pakistan not barred under S. 188, Cr.P.C., where a Pakistani citizen commits offence abroad---Criminal courts in Pakistan can try such persons if found within the country---Section 403 Cr.P.C. protection (against double jeopardy) only applies where accused has been tried and convicted or acquitted by competent court---No such trial or acquittal/conviction occurred in Oman, thus protection of S. 403 not attracted---Petitioner's objection regarding double jeopardy rejected.(b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 406, 408 & 405---Criminal breach of trust by servant---Misappropriation---Transfer of embezzled funds---Scope---Petitioner, employed as a driver in complainant’s company in Oman, was entrusted with significant cash, jewelry, and bank card---Instead of performing his duty, petitioner misappropriated the entrusted assets and transferred equivalent amount into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan---Held, entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation satisfied ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Ss. 405 & 408, PPC---Petitioner failed to dislodge prima facie evidence of his involvement or establish mala fide on part of complainant---Grant of pre-arrest bail held not justified.(c) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010----S. 3---Proceeds of crime---Offence committed abroad---Transfer of criminal proceeds into Pakistani accounts---Scope---Held, petitioner’s act of transferring embezzled funds from Oman into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan, knowing it was illicit wealth, attracted provisions of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Investigating Officer directed to examine applicability of AMLA provisions for further legal action.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 498 & 497---Pre-arrest bail---Extraordinary relief---Scope---Held, bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession granted only in cases of mala fide or false implication---Where strong prima facie evidence connects accused with offence, and no enmity or ulterior motive is established, bail cannot be granted---Petitioner’s plea of victimization held baseless---Ad-interim bail withdrawn.Disposition: Petition dismissed; ad-interim pre-arrest bail withdrawn.Cited Cases:• Dr. Imran murder case, Islamabad High Court (2022 PCr.LJ 1511)• 2011 YLR 2882• Section 403 Cr.P.C. interpreted in light of foreign prosecution protectionsCited Legislation:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 405, 406, 408• Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 3, 154, 188, 403, 496–498• Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, S. 3

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 496, 497 & 498–––Bailable offence–––Pre-arrest bail–––Scope–––Distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences–––Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Ss. 420, 170 PPC (bailable offences)–––Multiple bail petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution due to petitioner’s failure to appear, including one occasion citing a public protest (PTI Jalsa)–––Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed third petition on grounds of non-appearance without appreciating the mandatory nature of bail in bailable offences–––Held, under S.496 Cr.P.C, bail in bailable offence is a statutory right and cannot be refused by the Court on discretionary or procedural grounds–––Court's refusal to confirm bail due to non-appearance in a bailable offence constitutes a legal error–––Bail granted–––Order of Sessions Court set aside. Cited Cases: • Alam Zeb v. The State, PLD 2014 SC 760 • Mumtaz alias Bhutto v. The State, 2021 P Cr. L J 1300 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––S. 498–––Pre-arrest bail in bailable offence–––Judicial discretion–––Held, pre-arrest bail under S.498 Cr.P.C for a bailable offence does not involve judicial discretion–––Court must confirm bail upon surrender or appearance of the accused–––Judicial refusal to confirm such bail constitutes miscarriage of justice–––Procedural default (non-appearance) does not extinguish an accused’s right to bail in bailable cases. (c) Administration of justice––– –––Procedural technicalities–––Effect on rights of accused–––Courts are duty-bound to safeguard statutory rights of accused and not to let procedural lapses defeat substantive entitlements–––Held, where an accused provides a plausible explanation for absence and is charged with a bailable offence, relief cannot be denied on mere procedural irregularities–––Order of Sessions Court was arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Bail in Bailable Offences: ----Ss. 496, 497 & 498—Right to bail in bailable offences—Distinction between bail in bailable and non-bailable offences—Court’s discretion in granting pre-arrest bail. A person accused of a bailable offence has an indefeasible right to bail, which is not a mere privilege but a fundamental right under the law. The grant of bail in such cases is mandatory rather than discretionary, and courts have no option but to grant bail to the accused. Conversely, in non-bailable offences, bail is a matter of judicial discretion rather than an absolute right. (PLD 1963 SC 478, PLD 1995 SC 34, PLD 1997 SC 545, 2001 PCrLJ 1082, PLD 2014 SC 760 applied). (b) Bail – Courts must follow the law, not emotions: ----Role of the judiciary—Judicial officers bound by law—Emotions, sympathy, and subjective considerations have no place in dispensation of justice. The judiciary is bound to decide cases in accordance with the law, regardless of the emotional gravity of the allegations. A judge must not let sympathy or public sentiment influence the outcome, especially in matters where the law clearly provides for bail as a matter of right. In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge erred by denying pre-arrest bail despite the fact that the alleged offences were bailable. (PLD 2014 SC 760 followed). (c) Pre-Arrest Bail – No discretion to refuse in bailable offences: ----Pre-arrest bail—Bailable offences—Courts cannot refuse bail in bailable offences, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest. The court misapplied legal principles by treating pre-arrest bail differently from post-arrest bail in a bailable offence. The law makes no such distinction. The High Court reaffirmed that once an offence is categorized as bailable, courts have no discretion to refuse bail, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest. The Sessions Court’s refusal of bail in a bailable offence was thus a misinterpretation of law. (PLD 2014 SC 760, PLD 1963 SC 478, PLD 1995 SC 34 applied). (d) Cancellation of Bail in Bailable Offences – Not Permissible: ----Indefeasible right—Once granted, bail in a bailable offence cannot be canceled. The cancellation of bail in a bailable offence is not permissible, even if the accused engages in misconduct, intimidates witnesses, or attempts to influence the trial. Other legal remedies, such as contempt proceedings or preventive measures, may be invoked in such cases, but bail cannot be revoked in bailable offences. (PLD 1963 SC 478, AIR 1958 SC 376 followed). (e) Disposition – Confirmation of Pre-Arrest Bail: ----Final decision—Pre-arrest bail granted—Directions issued to lower courts. The Lahore High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused, directing him to furnish fresh bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 with one surety. The Additional Sessions Judge was also instructed for future guidance to ensure that in bailable offences, bail must be granted as a matter of right. ----Cited Cases: Alam Zeb & another v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760) Mst. Zeenat Begum v. Sadaqat Sagheer & another (2020 PCrLJ Note 4) Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478) Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Imtiaz Ahmad & another v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545) Allah Bachaya & 3 others v. The State (2001 PCrLJ 1082)

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 496 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 337-A(ii)---Application for quashment of order--Administrative order passed by Judicial Magistrate---Station House Officer of a Police Station had conducted investigation in a case and released the accused on bail as he was juvenile at the time of occurrence---Judicial Magistrate passed order that SHO had released the juvenile accused on bail though accused had committed nonbailable offence and thus he had misused his power, therefore FIR be registered against him (SHO)---Validity--Admittedly, accused was juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence---Under S. 496, Cr.P.C., the SHO could release the accused person in bailable offence on his furnishing bail bonds---Record showed that juvenile accused had allegedly committed offence under S.337-A(ii), P.P.C. and punishment provided for the said offence was five years imprisonment---Under provision of S.10(5) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, offence allegedly committed by the juvenile accused was bailable---If the SHO had no power to grant bail to the accused then at the most, bail granting order of SHO could be cancelled by the competent court of jurisdiction---In such situation, Judicial Magistrate could not issue order for lodging FIR against the petitioner/SHO as he had not committed any offence---Judicial Magistrate, in the present case, had travelled beyond his jurisdiction while passing impugned order, which was found arbitrary---Petition for quashment was allowed by the High Court and impugned order was set aside. ---2006 PCrLJ 518 and 1997 SCMR 1503 rel

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 496 & 497—Grant of bail—Distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences—Principles governing grant of bail—In bailable offences, the grant of bail is a right and not a favor, whereas in non-bailable offences, the grant of bail is a concession and not a right—Section 497 Cr.P.C. divides non-bailable offences into two categories: (i) Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for ten years—Bail can only be granted if there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty. (ii) Offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years—Bail is the rule, and refusal is an exception, which can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances, such as: Likelihood of absconding; Apprehension of tampering with evidence; Danger of repetition of the offence; or Previous conviction of the accused. Held, in petty offences, accused should not be unnecessarily detained, and courts should consider releasing under-trial prisoners on personal bonds if they are unable to furnish sureties. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(2)—Further inquiry—Benefit of doubt—Grant of bail—Where the material on record does not provide reasonable grounds to believe in the accused’s guilt but rather indicates a case of further inquiry, bail should be granted—The Court, at the bail stage, should only make a tentative assessment of the evidence and should not conduct a preliminary trial—Deep appreciation of evidence is neither desirable nor permissible at this stage—Held, benefit of doubt regarding: Occurrence itself, Identity of the accused, Role attributed to the accused, Presence at the scene, or Vicarious liability should be extended to the accused even at the bail stage—A person should not be kept behind bars if reasonable doubt exists about his participation in the offence. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497—Cancellation of bail—Legal principles—Difference between grant and cancellation of bail—The principles for granting bail and cancelling bail are distinct—Once bail has been granted by a competent court, it can only be cancelled on strong and exceptional grounds—Cancellation should not be used as a punishment—The mere seriousness of the charge is not a sufficient reason to cancel bail unless there is misuse of bail conditions or subsequent discovery of material evidence against the accused—Held, bail should not be cancelled arbitrarily, particularly when two different judges have taken conflicting views on the existence of reasonable grounds against the accused, making it a case of further inquiry. (d) Administration of Justice ----Bail jurisprudence—Overcrowding in jails—Need for judicial leniency in petty offences—Many under-trial prisoners remain incarcerated due to their inability to furnish sureties, despite being entitled to bail—Courts should ensure that trial judges consider the propriety of release on personal bonds in bailable and minor offences—Held, unnecessary detention of under-trial prisoners burdens the public exchequer, and judicial officers should avoid excessive severity in bail matters—Under-trial prisoners are entitled to food and medical facilities under S. 32 of the Prisons Act, 1894, and such rights should be respected. Disposition Appeal allowed—Impugned order of the Sindh High Court cancelling bail was set aside—Petitioners were granted bail upon furnishing fresh surety bonds of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court—Trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months—Observations in the High Court’s order and in this judgment were declared without prejudice to the merits of the case. Cited Cases: • Chairman, Selection Committee Bolan Medical College v. Miss Saria Hameed (1979 SCMR 529) • Government of Baluchistan v. Rifat Parveen (1981 SCMR 1002) • Muhammad Arshad v. Federation (PLD 1980 Pesh. 208) • Humera Satwat Yusuf’s case (PLD 1971 Lah. 641) ------- (2a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 496 & 497---Bail---Grant of bail in bailable offence is a right while in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace-- Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ltl years is a rule and refusal an exception---Exceptional and extraordinary cases whore bail is declined in oases of offences punishable with imprisonment of loss than ten years enumerated. In bailable offences the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace. Section 497, Cr.P.C. divided non-bailable offences into two categories i.e. (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for tee years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for loss than ten years. In non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases for example --- (a)where there is likelihood of the abscondence of the accused; (b)where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence; (c) where there is danger of the, offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and (d) whore the accused is a previous convict. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 19138)--- ----S. 497---Bail-_-Under-trial accused of bailable offences---Remand on failure to furnish surety/bail bond---in bailable cases while remanding the accused to jail on his failure to furnish surety/ail bond, Trial Court should consider the propriety of his release on execution of personal bond and not only the fist ardor of judicial remand but also oath subsequent ardor must show that the Court had really considered the propriety of his release on personal bond. Many under-trial accused of bailable offences and preventive offences i.e.- ent to or confined in jails for want of surety bonds although they, at the discretion of the Court, could be released on execution by chum of bond (personal bond) without surety for their appearance before the Court, Even in petty cases the Courts/subordinate Courts remand the accused to ,jail on their failure to produce sureties with the result that hundreds of under-trial accused who could have easily been released on personal bond are ratting in the jail for a long time. Supreme Court, therefore, directed that in bailable cases while remanding the accused to jail on his failure to furnish surety/bail bonds, the trial Court shall consider, the propriety of his release on execution of personal bond. Not only the first order of judicial remand but also each subsequent order must-show that the Court had really considered the propriety of his release on personal bond. Instead of being severe to an under-trial accused carrying presumption of innocence with them, it is bettor that the Court should be lenient in the matter-of bail, food and medical facilities. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-._ --S. 497---prisons Act (IX of 1894), S.32 - Bail-- Under-trial prisoner-- Accused in bailable offences, potty offences and offences punishable- with imprisonment for less than 10 years should not unnecessarily be detained in the jail---Under-trial prisoners are entitled to have clothes and food privately under 5.32; Prisons Act, which facilities are to be liberally provided to them till they are convicted. Under section 32 of the Prisons Act, an under-trial prisoner is entitled to have clothes and food privately. These facilities should liberally be provided to them till they are convicted. The jails are over-crowded. The detention of under-trial prisoners, food and medical facilities and their transportation from jail to the Court heavily burden public exchequer. It would be in consonance with the law of bail and in the fitness of things that accused in bailable offences, petty offences and offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years should not unnecessarily be detained in the jail. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Accused of offences punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or for ten years--Grant/refusal of bail to be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case--Provisions of 5.497, Cr.P.C. are not punitive in nature as regards offences punishable with death; or imprisonment for life, imprisonment for ten years, for there is no concept of punishment before judgment in law--Where the prosecution satisfies the Court that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that the accused has committed the crime falling in category of offences punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years the Court must refuse bail---Where, however, the accused satisfies the Court that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail---Court, for arriving at any such conclusion, is not to conduct a preliminary trial/ inquiry but will only make tentative assessment "Reasonable grounds" mean grounds which appeal to a reasonable and prudent man---Guidelines for Courts in disposal of bail cases furnished.--[Words anti phrases]. As regards offences, punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years the provisions of section 497(1) are not punitive in nature. There is no concept of punishment before judgment in the criminal law of the land. The question of grant/refusal of bail is to be determined judiciously leaving regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the prosecution satisfies the Court, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the crime falling in the category of offences punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years; the Court must refuse bail. On the other hand where the accused satisfies the Court that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, the Court will not conduct a preliminary trial/inquiry but will only make tentative assessment, i.e., will look at the material collected by the police for and against the accused and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt. Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case is neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage. So, the Court will not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at that stage. The bail order must be carefully balanced and weighed in scale of justice and requirement of relevant law. Reasonable grounds mean grounds which appeal to a reasonable and prudent man. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ____s, 497(5)---Bail---Cancellation---Grant of bail and cancellation thereof-- Considerations altogether different---Once bail is granted by Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation thereof. (f)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---To deprive a person on post-arrest bail of the liberty is a most serious step to be taken. . (g)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Offence allegedly committed by accused punishable with death; imprisonilpent for life or imprisonment for ten years---Benefit of reasonable doubt about occurrence itself, identity of-the accused, part allegedly played by accused in the occurrence, his presence on the spot and all the questions of his vicarious liability, would go to him at bail stage --- Wherever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime, he should not be deprived of the benefit of bail, for bail can neither be withheld nor cancelled as punishment.--[Benefit of doubt]. There is no legal compulsion to cancel the bail of the accused who allegedly have committed crime punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. Question of benefit of reasonable doubt is necessary to be determined not only while deciding the question of guilt of an accused but also while considering the question of bail because there is a wide difference between the jail life and a free life. So, benefit of reasonable doubt 'about occurrence itself, identity of the accused, part allegedly played by him in the occurrence, his presence on the spot and on the question of his vicarious liability, would go to him even at bail stage. There is a tendency to involve innocent persons with the guilty. Once an innocent person is falsely involved in a serious case then he has to remain in jail for considerable time. Normally it takes two years to conclude the trial. When a person is detained in the jail, all his dependents also suffer hardships. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run. So, whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime, he should not be deprived of the benefit of bail. The bail can neither be withheld nor cancelled as punishment. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497---Bail---One Judge of the High Court on examination of the F.LR., statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and the material collected during investigation was of the opinion that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused were guilty of the offence alleged against them-- Another Judge of the same High Court on the same material on record had come to totally different conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused persons had committed the alleged crime---Held contrary views/opinions of the two Judges of the same High Court about the guilt of the accused, in circumstances, made out a case of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. In the present case, one Judge of the High Court on examination of the F.LR., statements recorded under section 161, CrP.C. and the material collected during investigation was of the opinion, that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused were guilty of the offences alleged against them, whereas on the same material on record, another Judge of the same High Court had come to a totally different conclusion that there were reasonable .grounds to believe that the accused persons had committed the alleged crime. The contrary conclusions arrived at by the two Judges of the High Court had made the existence of reasonable grounds to connect the accused with the crime doubtful, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt at such stage. In any case, the contrary views/opinions of the two Judges of the High Court about the guilt of the accused had made out a case of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Bail—Bailable offence—Right, not discretion ----Ss. 496, 497 & 498, Cr.P.C.; S. 289-A, A.P.C.—Interpretation—Petitioner accused under S. 289-A A.P.C. sought post-arrest bail which was declined by Magistrate and Sessions Judge on the view that S. 295-A A.P.C. was also attracted—Held, the alleged offence under S. 289-A A.P.C. is bailable; in such offences, grant of bail is a right and not a favour—Courts have no discretion to refuse bail where the statute confers it as of right—Denial by the Courts below amounted to deviation from the settled law and misinterpretation of the statutory scheme. (b) Statutory construction—Interpretation of penal laws ----Rule of plain meaning—Courts must interpret the law as it is, not as it ought to be—Public sentiment or administrative considerations cannot justify denial of a statutory right—Where language of statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given effect regardless of consequences—Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, 7th Ed., applied. (c) Bail—Judicial discretion—Limits ----At the bail stage, a Court cannot speculate that a non-bailable offence may later be attracted unless the same is formally added or reflected in the police report under S. 173 Cr.P.C.—Right of bail in a bailable offence cannot be defeated on conjecture or by treating a different offence as “also attracted.” (d) Investigating agency and prosecution—Duties ----Investigating agency and Law Officers are bound to act within law; failure to add alleged non-bailable sections in the challan yet opposing bail on that ground reflects dereliction of statutory responsibility—Courts are not to shoulder investigative lapses. (e) Constitutional command—Binding precedent ----Under the AJK Interim Constitution, subordinate Courts are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court and High Court—Deviation from binding precedent constitutes judicial impropriety. Held: Offence under S. 289-A A.P.C. being bailable, petitioner entitled to bail as of right; orders of Courts below refusing bail were illegal and set aside. Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 100,000 with two local sureties and personal bond in like amount to satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur. Registrar directed to circulate judgment to all subordinate Courts for compliance. Cited Cases: 2022 SCR 714; 2009 SCR 345; 2001 SCR 481; 2013 SCR 134; 2015 SCR 744. Disposition: Revision petition accepted; bail granted forthwith.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) & Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---- ----Ss. 496, 497, 6, 9, 10 & 14 JJSA, 2018----Post-arrest bail of juvenile offender----Scope----Juvenile accused arrested under Sections 9(1)6(d) & 9(2)5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and found in possession of 2516 grams of heroin and 590 grams of “ice” (methamphetamine)---Petitioner claimed to be a minor at the time of arrest, and NADRA record verified his date of birth as 13-03-2009, confirming that he was 14 years and 9 months old at the time of arrest---Held, that under Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, a juvenile accused under 16 years of age is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as exposure to criminal influence or endangerment to society---Further held, that while the offence carried a capital sentence, the absence of elements such as brutality, shocking public morality, or gruesome nature of the crime did not make it a “heinous offence” within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the JJSA, 2018---Failure of police and trial court to comply with mandatory procedures under Sections 5, 9 & 10 of the JJSA, 2018, including failure to inform the guardian and probation officer, was noted as a serious lapse---Bail granted subject to submission of surety or, in case of financial incapacity, personal surety bond by a family member. Cited Cases: • Shehzad Ali v. State 2023 YLR 1025 • State v. Muhammad Javed 2022 SCMR 1256 • Shahbaz Ali v. The State 2021 PCrLJ 2094 (b) Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---- ----Ss. 5, 6, 9, 10, 14 & 15----Failure to comply with procedural safeguards for juvenile accused----Obligation of courts and police----Scope----Held, that JJSA, 2018 provides a distinct procedural framework for handling juvenile offenders emphasizing rehabilitation over punitive measures---Police failed to place the juvenile in an observation home, inform his guardian, and notify the probation officer as required under Sections 5 & 9 of the JJSA, 2018---Trial court also failed to direct verification of the petitioner’s age at the outset, causing unnecessary delay in securing his rights under the law---Further held, that international obligations under the Child Rights Convention, 1989, mandate the use of diversion mechanisms to prevent undue incarceration of juveniles---Courts directed to ensure timely verification of juvenility, and police instructed to submit age verification reports from NADRA, school records, or hospital data before producing minors in court. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Jameel v. State 2023 MLD 756 • Naveed Akhtar v. State 2022 SCMR 1431 (c) Juvenile Rights & Administration of Justice---- ----International child rights obligations & judicial directions for compliance----Scope----Held, that courts and law enforcement agencies are duty-bound to uphold international commitments made by Pakistan under the Child Rights Convention, 1989, ensuring juveniles are dealt with in a rehabilitative rather than punitive manner---Inspector General of Police, SSP Investigation, and District & Sessions Judges of Islamabad directed to implement juvenile protection measures including: (i) Immediate notification of guardians upon arrest; (ii) Submission of age verification report from NADRA, Union Council, or hospitals before court proceedings; (iii) Involvement of probation officers in diversion plans; (iv) Prohibition of juvenile detention in regular jails; and (v) Ensuring state-funded legal assistance for juveniles---Non-compliance with these requirements to be considered misconduct, and quarterly compliance reports to be submitted to the court. ----Disposition: Criminal Misc. No. 28/B/2025 allowed---Petitioner granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety of Rs. 20,000/- or personal surety bond by a family member in case of financial hardship. Directions issued to law enforcement and judicial authorities for mandatory compliance with JJSA, 2018 and Child Rights Convention, 1989.