Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Fatal road accident---Offences under Ss. 322, 337-G & 279, P.P.C.---Further custody/investigation not required---Petitioner-accused sought pre-arrest bail in case registered under Ss. 322, 337-G and 279, P.P.C., arising out of a road accident wherein three persons had died after a Mazda Coaster allegedly hit their motorcycle in rash and negligent manner---Supreme Court observed that although three innocent persons had expired in the unfortunate incident, the material consideration was whether petitioner was still required for extracting further facts or for further inquiry/investigation---Investigating Officer, when specifically asked by Court, failed to give any plausible reason for further requirement of petitioner and conceded that petitioner was no more required for further inquiry or investigation---Held, in such circumstances no fruitful purpose would be served by refusing pre-arrest bail merely for extracting more facts from petitioner. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 322 & 279---Qatl-bis-sabab and rash/negligent driving---Bail before arrest---Nature of offences---Supreme Court observed that offence under S.322, P.P.C. entails diyat only, whereas offence under S.279, P.P.C. is bailable---When these factors were considered together with the fact that petitioner was no longer required for investigation, petitioner was entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Name of accused not appearing in FIR---Allegation of fake driving licence---Effect---Petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR, which was initially registered against an unknown driver---Allegation regarding petitioner possessing a fake driving licence was treated as a separate matter---Supreme Court observed that even if it was assumed that petitioner had a fake driving licence, such offence was bailable and did not justify refusal of pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Tentative assessment at bail stage---Supreme Court clarified that observations made in bail before arrest order were tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party before Trial Court. Disposition: Petition seeking bail before arrest was converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court; observations were declared tentative and not to prejudice trial.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1)---Prohibitory clause---Scope and determination---Whether “minimum” or “maximum” statutory punishment controls applicability of prohibitory clause---Held, where statute prescribes a sentencing range with a mandatory minimum and higher maximum (in this case, nine to fourteen years under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997), the offence falls within the prohibitory clause if the maximum sentence equals or exceeds ten years---The maximum punishment, not the minimum, governs the inquiry for purposes of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---High Court fell into error by treating nine-year minimum as a discrete “lesser punishment” and concluding that the case lay outside the prohibitory clause---Such reasoning misconstrues the legislative intent and statutory structure---Proper test is whether the maximum punishment prescribed by law attracts the clause. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c) [as amended on 06.09.2022]---Punishment “not less than nine years and may extend to fourteen years”---Interpretation---Statute does not create two distinct punishments but fixes a lower and upper limit---For determining application of the prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., the upper limit of fourteen years is controlling---Minimum term only sets a sentencing floor below which Court cannot go---To treat it as a “lesser alternative punishment” is contrary to settled law. (c) Bail ----Grant of bail in offences falling within prohibitory clause---Discretion and exceptional grounds---Even where prohibitory clause applies, bail may be granted on well-recognised exceptional considerations, such as further inquiry under S. 497(2), mala fides, false implication, glaring infirmities, or violation of statutory requirements (e.g., chain of custody)---However, in the present case, no perversity or misuse of concession shown---Order granting bail not recalled, though reasoning corrected. (d) Appellate jurisdiction---Interference with bail orders ----Principles---Supreme Court generally refrains from interfering with bail once granted unless order is perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading of record---Though High Court erred in reasoning, no such perversity found---Bail maintained but reasons substituted. Held: High Court’s reasoning that offence under S. 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997, falls outside prohibitory clause because minimum punishment was nine years, was erroneous. For determining applicability of prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., maximum punishment prescribed (fourteen years) is decisive. Petition disposed of; impugned order of bail maintained to extent of relief but reasons substituted. Trial Court directed to decide case expeditiously on merits, uninfluenced by observations herein. Cited Cases: Jabran and another v. The State through DG FIA & others, 2025 SCMR 1099 Muhammad Haroon v. The State, 2004 SCMR 89 Jamal-ud-Din v. The State, 2012 SCMR 573 Socha Gul v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1077 Anti-Narcotics Force v. Qasim Ali, 2019 SCMR 1928 Hazrat Amin v. The State, 2020 SCMR 418 Gul Rehman v. The State, PLD 2021 SC 795 Khuda Bux v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1160 Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, PLD 2009 Lah. 362 Majid Ali v. The State, 2022 PCr.LJ 981 Disposition: Petition disposed of—bail order maintained; reasoning corrected.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497 ---- Post-arrest bail—Cross-firing between rival groups—Delay in recording injured witness statement—Scope of inquiry—Further probe. Occurrence arose out of cross-firing between two rival groups in which a minor bystander later died. FIR attributed a joint role of firing to both parties without specifying who caused the injury to Abdul Jabbar (injured). Statement of Abdul Jabbar under S.161, Cr.P.C., attributing the knee injury to the petitioner, was recorded after 1 month and 6 days, without any explanation or medical certification that he was unfit to give statement earlier. Such delayed implication rendered the matter doubtful and required further inquiry. The solitary non-vital injury (on the knee) also weakened the applicability of S.324, P.P.C., as it did not show an intent to commit murder. As for S.302, P.P.C., death of the minor occurred due to firing from the rival group, not the petitioner’s side. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Umer v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477) • Umer Hayat v. The State (2008 SCMR 1621) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149 ---- Cross-cases—Determination of aggressor—Bail—Principles. Where both parties engage in cross-firing and the question as to who was the aggressor or aggressed upon can only be determined after recording of evidence, such cases fall within the ambit of further inquiry warranting grant of bail. Petitioner was not alleged to have caused any fatal injury, was not involved in any other case, and had a specific, non-vital role. Cited Cases: • Noor Muhammad v. The State (2009 SCMR 324) • Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain (2011 SCMR 606) • Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool (2013 SCMR 1415) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of Lahore High Court dated 02.06.2025 set aside. Petitioner Asad Khalil granted post-arrest bail in FIR No.97/2025, P.S. Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: Bail granted ----- a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497 ---- Post-arrest bail ---- Further inquiry ---- Principles and scope. Petitioner was implicated through a supplementary statement recorded ten days after lodging of the F.I.R. against unknown persons for offences under Ss. 457, 380 and 411, P.P.C. Supplementary statement did not disclose any source of information leading to the petitioner’s nomination. Held, that such belated implication, based on undisclosed and unverified information, created serious doubt regarding the petitioner’s involvement and, therefore, the case squarely fell within the ambit of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. It is well settled that “further inquiry” presupposes a tentative assessment of the prosecution material which raises reasonable doubt about the accused’s participation, and where such doubt exists, bail is to be granted. The maxim that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497 ---- Reasonable grounds and further inquiry distinguished. The expressions “reasonable grounds” and “further inquiry” connote distinct thresholds: the former requires legally tenable and admissible evidence appealing to a reasonable judicial mind to show guilt, while the latter arises where the prosecution evidence leaves room for doubt or necessitates deeper scrutiny at trial. In the present case, prosecution failed to produce any tangible evidence or recovery connecting the petitioner with the theft, nor any material substantiating the assertion that he was a hardened criminal. Hence, no reasonable grounds existed to withhold bail. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 173 ---- Expeditious trial direction. Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., having been submitted with only 4–5 witnesses, Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months, ensuring no unnecessary adjournments. Observations in the bail order were declared tentative and not to prejudice either party at trial. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of High Court set aside. Petitioner Abid granted post-arrest bail on furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 100,000 with personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to good conduct and cooperation during trial; Trial Court empowered to cancel bail upon misuse.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 497(1) & 497(2) — Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-N(2), 148 & 149 — Post-arrest bail — Scope and considerations. Where an injury falling under S. 337-A(iii), P.P.C. (Shajjah-i-Hashimah) was attributed to the accused, the High Court declined bail solely on the ground that the case fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. — Held, that such approach was erroneous. The medical certificate merely reflected “external nasal deformity and bony crepitus,” and under S. 337-N(2), P.P.C., imprisonment by way of Ta’zir may only be imposed if the offender is shown to be a previous convict, habitual, hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, or if the act was committed in the name or on the pretext of honour. — In the absence of such findings by the trial or appellate courts, no lawful imprisonment under Ta’zir could be imposed. — Consequently, the case of the petitioner attracted S. 337-N(2), P.P.C., making his incarceration unjustified at the bail stage. — Reliance placed on Abdul Wahab v. The State (2019 SCMR 516). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(2) — Further inquiry — Grant of bail. Held, that the question whether S. 337-A(iii) P.P.C. truly attracted the prohibitory clause required further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., particularly when the petitioner was in custody since 24-04-2025, no recovery was to be made from him, and trial proceedings were unlikely to conclude soon. The unexplained 14-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. prima facie rendered the prosecution’s version doubtful and susceptible to deliberation or consultation. Background of prior enmity between parties reinforced the requirement of cautious judicial scrutiny. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497 — Principle of consistency — Co-accused granted bail. Where a co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail, the petitioner was entitled to the same concession on grounds of consistency, there being no distinguishing features. (d) Criminal law — Bail as a rule and refusal as exception. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the gravity or heinousness of an alleged offence alone is not a sufficient ground for refusal of bail if the circumstances otherwise call for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Bail cannot be withheld as a substitute for punishment. Reference made to Husnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914). (e) Delay in lodging F.I.R. — Effect. An unexplained delay of 14 days in registration of F.I.R. undermined the spontaneity of the occurrence, introduced doubt about the prosecution story, and created room for deliberation and fabrication — such delay strengthened the case for bail. (f) Disposition. — Petition converted into appeal and allowed. — Orders of the courts below set aside. — Petitioner admitted to post-arrest bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. — Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of misuse. — Observations made were tentative and confined to bail determination. Held: Petition allowed; bail granted.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 171, 419 & 420 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail After Arrest --- Through instant petition, Waqas Javed, petitioner, has assailed order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, with prayer to set aside said order and grant post-arrest bail to him in case registered vide FIR No. 230 dated 30.04.2025 under Sections 171, 419 & 420 PPC at Police Station Margalla, Islamabad --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- As per contents of FIR, petitioner impersonated himself as intelligence officer, as well as, as media anchor and also made illegal demands from Fahad Iqbal, Inspector FIA and asked him to share source report regarding some unlawful activities about white collar crimes carried out in local territory --- Petitioner also extended threats to complainant party, hence, FIR of this case --- Offences under Sections 420 and 171 PPC are bailable and grant of bail in such like offences is right of accused whereas offence under Section 419 PPC does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is rule while refusal is exception --- No exceptional ground has been pointed out by learned Law Officer to refuse bail to petitioner, hence, petitioner is entitled to relief of post-arrest bail as observed in cases of Khalil Ahmed Soomro Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) and Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) --- Although it is argued by learned Law Officer that petitioner is also involved in one other criminal case but it is by now well settled that mere involvement of accused in some other case(s) by itself is no ground to refuse bail to him if otherwise he is entitled to said relief on merits --- Reference in this context may be made to cases of Muhammad Rafique Vs. The State (1997 SCMR 412) and Jamal ud Din alias Zubair Khan Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 573) --- Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed --- Impugned order is set aside --- Petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail After Arrest --- Post-Arrest Bail --- Maintainability --- This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal is filed by Binyameen against impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby his application for post-arrest bail was dismissed --- Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. 123 dated 15.03.2025 under Sections 302, 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 PPC registered at police station Mardan City, District Mardan --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- As per contents of FIR, occurrence took place on 15.03.2025 at about 8.00 p.m in area of Mardan City where petitioner along with other co-accused persons allegedly committed murder of deceased and caused injuries to complainant party --- Petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case --- He further argued that there are material contradictions in prosecution evidence and case against petitioner is based on weak evidence --- He also submitted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name surfaced during investigation --- Learned counsel further argued that petitioner has been in custody for more than five months and trial is not likely to conclude in near future --- He also submitted that petitioner is not a flight risk and will not tamper with prosecution evidence --- Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa opposed bail application and argued that petitioner is involved in heinous offence of murder --- He further argued that there is sufficient evidence against petitioner to connect him with commission of offence --- He also submitted that if released on bail, petitioner may abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence --- After perusal of record and hearing arguments, we find that petitioner is facing trial for serious offences including murder --- However, we have noted that petitioner has been in custody for more than five months and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial --- We have also noted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name surfaced during investigation --- There are also some contradictions in prosecution evidence which need to be tested during trial --- In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that petitioner deserves relief of post-arrest bail --- Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed --- Impugned order is set aside --- Petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petitioner shall also appear before Trial Court on each date of hearing and shall not leave jurisdiction of Trial Court without prior permission --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)— —S. 497—Post-arrest bail—Principles—Case of further inquiry— Accused charged under S. 376 PPC with allegation of committing zina with complainant’s daughter—DNA and medical report confirmed sexual intercourse, but medico-legal certificate disclosed no marks of violence—Victim’s statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C. raised material contradictions: FIR registered by mother who was not present at the occurrence; father and relative allegedly nearby but incident not explained satisfactorily; inconsistencies in victim’s narration during cross-examination—Held, case against accused fell within ambit of “further inquiry” under S. 497 Cr.P.C.—Where trial is delayed despite submission of challan, and accused is no longer required for investigation, bail cannot be withheld merely as punishment—Accused admitted to post-arrest bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— —S. 164—Statement of victim—Evidentiary value at bail stage— Victim’s S. 164 Cr.P.C. statement being inconsistent and raising doubts regarding occurrence circumstances, coupled with absence of corroborative violence marks, constituted valid grounds for further inquiry—Statement not sufficient by itself to deny bail where contradictions and improbabilities exist—Matter left for determination at trial. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)— —S. 497—Bail—Delays in trial—Effect— Despite submission of challan in December 2024, no witness including victim examined by trial court till hearing of petition in August 2025—No plausible explanation offered by prosecution—Held, inordinate delay in trial strengthens case for bail, as bail cannot be used as pre-trial punishment. Disposition Petition converted into appeal—Allowed—Post-arrest bail granted subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 — S. 497 — Post-arrest bail — Allegation of criminal conspiracy — Parity and consistency — Tentative assessment at bail stage ---- Post-arrest bail granted — Others similarly charged already on bail — No trial commenced against petitioner — Material requires scrutiny — Principle of consistency applied — Petitioner was refused bail by the High Court in eight FIRs involving multiple charges including criminal conspiracy and terrorism — Supreme Court noted that co-accused similarly charged in the same FIRs had already been granted bail by this Court — Held, principle of consistency warranted similar relief — Prosecution evidence, including witness statements and media footage, required deeper scrutiny not suitable for conclusive determination at bail stage — Investigations not yet complete — Bail granted to petitioner subject to surety. Cited Precedents: Bail granted to Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mehmood, and Hafiz Farhat Abbas (relied upon for parity) (b) Bail — Criminal Procedure — Tentative findings — Scope and limitations — High Court findings at bail stage --- Definitive findings on merits at bail stage deprecated — May prejudice fair trial — Bail stage confined to tentative view — Supreme Court disapproved detailed findings by Lahore High Court in the impugned order, which touched upon merits of the case — Held, bail proceedings must not include conclusions that could adversely affect trial — Courts should remain circumspect to avoid prejudicing either party — The role of bail jurisdiction is not to adjudicate guilt or innocence but to weigh provisional liberty in light of available record. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 — S. 7 — Application to political violence — Multiple FIRs — Bail in politically sensitive prosecutions ---- Bail can be granted even in terrorism-tagged cases if standard of evidence insufficient and parity established — FIRs included section 7 ATA, 1997 among a host of other penal provisions — Court held that presence of ATA provisions does not, by itself, oust the application of bail where no individualized overt act is attributed, trial has not begun, and similarly placed persons are on bail — Requirement of scrutiny at trial stage affirmed. Final Disposition: Petitions converted into appeals and allowed. Bail granted to Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi in all eight FIRs, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ----Ss. 9(c), 21, 29—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984), Art. 122—Bail—Mere presence in vehicle—Doctrine of knowledge and possession—Scope. Petitioner, apprehended as passenger in truck from which narcotics were recovered from secret cavities, sought post-arrest bail. Record disclosed no material showing that petitioner had knowledge of the concealed contraband or exercised control over it. Prosecution merely established his presence in the vehicle at the time of interception, which alone could not attract liability under the Act unless knowledge, abetment, or conspiracy was proven. Held, that the concept of possession under the Act requires conscious control or awareness of the narcotic substance. In absence of evidence showing petitioner’s knowledge or participation, Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (presumption regarding possession) was inapplicable. (b) Criminal liability—Principle of individual responsibility—Familial relationship—No vicarious criminal liability. The contention that petitioner was son of the co-accused (driver) and therefore equally responsible was rejected. Court reaffirmed that criminal law is based on the principle of individual responsibility, and liability cannot be extended to family members merely on account of relationship. The Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) in his final sermon emphasized that a father is not answerable for the deeds of his son, nor a son for those of his father. Familial relation does not transmit culpability unless active abetment or facilitation is proven. (c) Criminal Procedure—Post-arrest bail—Further inquiry. Given absence of evidence establishing petitioner’s conscious possession or participation, case fell within ambit of further inquiry as contemplated by S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petition was converted into appeal, impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and bail was granted. Cited Case: • Javed v. State (2017 SCMR 531) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.1,000,000 with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court.