Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.91, Sr. No. (3)(c)----Possession of contraband charas weighing 1500 grams---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Non-conclusion of trial for considerable period---Delay not attributed to accused---Although the petitioner was named in the FIR, however, he was behind the bars for more than last one year and two months without any material progress in the trial---Report of Trial Court reflected that it was the prosecution which contributed to the delay in the conclusion of the trial as on several occasions prosecution witnesses were not in attendance---The guilt of the petitioner would be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Petitioner had been in custody since the time of his arrest---Investigation had been completed and his physical custody was no longer required by the investigating agency for further probe---Petitioner had no previous conviction to his discredit, and his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose---Petitioner was admitted to bail after arrest, is in circumstances. Sagheer Ahmed v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 913 and Abbas Raza v. The State 2020 SCMR 1859 ref. Shahid Rafiq Mayo for Petitioner. Abdul Samad, Additional Prosecutor General with Muhammad Zahid SI along with police record.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Offences not attracting the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Further inquiry---Record revealed that petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the allegation of having issued a cheque valuing Rs.21,00,000/- in favour of complainant to discharge his financial obligation, which upon presentation before the bank was dishonored due to insufficient funds---The offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., entails maximum punishment up to three (03) years and does not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Regarding the offences which do not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail is a rule, whereas, refusal is an exception---Petitioner is behind the bars since 28.04.2025 and he cannot be kept confined for an unlimited period---Thus, the case of petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling him to the concession of post arrest bail---Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances. Ch. Rashad Ali Gujjar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, APG with Nadeem, ASI for the State. Shahid Rafiq Mayo for the Complainant.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-U, 337-A (1), 337-L (2), 148 & 149---Injury on teeth, shajja-i-khafifa, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Injury on lips---Itlaf-i udw to be determined by Trial Court---Allegation against the petitioner/accused was that he inflicted pistol butt blow on mouth of complainant due to which his lip was fractured and one tooth was broken---There was a delay of about six days in reporting the matter to the police without there being any satisfactory explanation---According to contents of FIR, the petitioner inflicted pistol butt blow on mouth of complainant due to which his lip was fractured and one tooth was broken, however, the injuries allegedly attributed to the petitioner had been declared under Ss.337-L(2) & 337-A(i), P.P.C, which were bailable and S.337-U, P.P.C, which carried the punishment of arsh i.e. one-twentieth of the diyat---Whether or not S.337-U, P.P.C would be read with S.334, P.P.C, would be answered by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Petitioner was not involved in any other case of such like nature---Petitioner was behind bars since his arrest and no more required for the purpose of investigation---No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period---Thus, case of the petitioner called for further inquiry within the ambit of Subsection (2) of S.497, Code of Criminal Procedure---Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances. Shahid Rafique Mayo for Petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Nouman Siddique, DPG along with Muhammad Sona, ASI with record. Farrukh Mehmood for the Complainant.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Application for cancellation of bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-respondent was that he issued cheque in consideration of purchasing of a vehicle from the petitioner/complainant and when the cheque was presented before the bank concerned, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, hence the FIR was lodged---Accused-respondent was arrested in the said FIR---Accused-respondent filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate but was rejected---Being aggrieved, the accused-respondent filed bail application before the Sessions Court, which was allowed---Validity---From perusal of the record, it was evident that the respondent/accused was granted bail by the Sessions Judge---Grounds urged by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of bail revolved around deeper appreciation of evidence which was not permissible at bail stage and the grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds for granting bail were totally different---For cancellation of bail under S.497(5), Cr.P.C., it was mandatory that there should be repetition of offence; chance of absconsion; tempering of prosecution evidence; interference in the investigation; creation of hurdles in investigation, or a try to delay the trial; judgment/order passed by the lower Court being without jurisdiction or illegal exercis of jurisdiction, but no such like situation existed in the present case---Court had exercised its discretion in granting bail and the same did not appear to be perverse, illegal or arbitrary---Moreover, once a bail was granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then it could only be recalled on exceptional grounds, such exceptional grounds were not existing in the instant case---Furthermore, no grounds for cancellation of bail had been substantiated by the petitioner/complainant in the instant application---Application filed under S.497(5), Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Farhan Ali for Petitioner/Complainant. Wahid Ali for Respondent. Malik Sher Baz, Additional Advocate General for the Proforma-respondent/State. Date of hearing: 17th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 436, 427, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Mischief by fire and explosive substance, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-applicant were that he along with five others set ablaze the houses of complainant party along with their surrounding hedge by means of matchstick as a result whereof the hedge, houses and the household articles lying there were burnt to ashes, whereas, the co-accused persons resorted to aerial firing---From perusal of the record it would be seen that the applicant was named in the FIR and specific role of setting the houses on fire with surrounding hedge and household articles of complainant by means of matchstick was assigned to him---So far as delay in lodgment of FIR was concerned, delay per se was no ground to discard and/discredit the entire prosecution case/version---No mala fide was shown on the part of complainant to implicate the applicant/accused in the case falsely, particularly, nothing had been placed on record to substantiate the ground urged with regard to any land dispute between the parties---Principles governing thegrant of post arrest bail and those for seeking pre-arrest bail were altogether different---Basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were lacking in this case---Per progress report submitted by the Trial Court, after framing of charge against the accused, witnesses had been appearing but the defence was seeking adjournment on one or the other pretext---Such brazen attitude of accused showed they had no nexus or concern with trial but to press bail application only to linger on the trial proceedings to defeat the interest of prosecution---Applicant had no case for grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail--- Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and others PLD 2009 SC 427 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto for Applicant. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Javed Ahmed Soomro for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Whether power to do so laid with Federal Investigation Agency or Federal Government---Petitioners were implicated in FIR registered under Ss.419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109 & 34, P.P.C, read with Ss.36 & 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance and S.4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010---Initially they were admitted to bail, but were subsequently acquitted by the District Court, however, the acquittal appeal filed against their acquittal order was partly accepted and matter was remanded for fresh decision, but in the post-remand proceedings, they were convicted---On filing of appeal, this Court suspended the conviction and sentence, and released the petitioners on bail---When the petitionersattempted to travel abroad to perform Umrah, they were stopped at the airport and informed that their names had been placed on the blacklist/Passport Control List by the DG Immigration & Passport on the recommendation of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)---Held: Right to travel formed an essential part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty and could only be restricted under a valid law enacted in the public interest---Any restraint on movement must have lawful justification and could not be imposed arbitrarily---Executive discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith and within the bounds of law---Administrative instructions or policies could not curtail constitutional rights beyond statutory authority and mere pendency of criminal proceedings was not sufficient to prohibit movement---Restrictions such as blacklisting must be applied sparingly, after application of mind and must not be indefinite or disproportionate---Executive must not act mechanically on departmental recommendations---Placement on an exit or Passport Control List could not be automatic upon registration of FIR or even upon pendency of proceedings; if a person was on bail, released or not a proclaimed offender, the authority must give cogent, specific reasons before curtailing his/her constitutional right to travel---Suspension of sentence did not ipso facto amount to acquittal; however, suspension neutralized theoperative effect of a conviction for the time being and enlivened the petitioners' right to be treated as persons entitled to procedural fairness---Even for persons who stand convicted, any preventive restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and must be exercised after application of mind and by giving reasons---Rules could not be used in a mechanical fashion to perpetuate deprivation of a constitutional right without review and without the administrative authority stating cogent grounds---Absence of any record of reconsideration of any fresh security assessment, or of any contemporaneous reasons why the petitioners should continue to be prevented from travelling, led the Court to the conclusion that the placement on Passport Control List was not the result of an exercise of reasoned discretion---Where the rule was invoked the authority must showed that the case fell squarely within the categories enumerated in the Rule; that the decision was not taken mechanically, but after application of mind; that the restriction was proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and that the person affected was given an opportunity to be heard, unless the urgency of the circumstance rendered such hearing impracticable and then the authority must nevertheless record reasons for not giving such hearing---None of those safeguards were visible on the record before this Court in respect of the petitioners---Rule 22(1) contemplated that the Federal Government was vested with the power to regulate departure and entry and the Division concerned and Directorate General shall prepare and maintain the Passport Control List; yet there was nothing on record to indicate that any approval by the Federal Government, where required, hadbeen obtained in relation to those entries, or that the competent Division applied its mind to the matter---For reasons of good governance and to avoid arbitraryexercise of power, entries on Passport Control List could not be made or maintained in a clandestine, mechanical and non-reviewable manner---Respondents had not produced any material to show that the petitioners posed a continuing security risk, which could not be addressed by less restrictive measures, for instance, by conditional travel permission, surrendering of passports to the Trial Court, or by Court-ordered restrictions tailored to ensure presence for trial---Record showed that the petitioners were on bail, their appeal was pending and their conviction was suspended---Principal rationale advanced in support of the Passport Control List entry (fear of absconsion) had not been supported by evidence of any attempts to flee or of any threat to national security---In the absence of such material, continuing the bar on travel was disproportionate---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. General (Retd). Pervez Musharraf PLD 2016 SC 570; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473; Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179; Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lah. 359; Dada Amir Haider Khan’s case PLD 1987 SC 504; Wajid Shams-ud-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617; Shabana Noor Ahmed v. DG Immigration and Passport PlD 2019 Sindh 456; Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan PlD 2019 Isl. 316 and Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2014 Isl. 29 rel. (b) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Requirements and guidelines---No person shall be placed on the Passport Control List without a contemporaneous record of reasons showing application of mind;wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall be issued before placing a person on Passport Control List and an opportunity of hearing he afforded; where emergency action is taken without prior notice, reasons for omission of prior notice must be recorded in writing and the matter must be reviewed within a reasonable time; andperiodic review of entries on Passport Control List must be undertaken to ensure no person is kept on the list mechanically or indefinitely. Raja Rizwan Abbasi for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G for the State. Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1), third proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, counterfeit seals, making or possessing a counterfeit seal or instrument with the intent to commit forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct---Statutory delay in conclusion of trial---Accused sought their bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Held: Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they being Administrators and Officers of the Cooperative Societies Department, in active connivance with a land grabber illegally usurped the Society, misplaced original records, filed fake memberships before Court, engineered elections in September 2020 and installed a dummy management, thereafter, bogus plot files were prepared and sold to the public, crime proceeds of approx. Rs.130 million were laundered through various accounts and two properties were purchased in an other Society---In the instant case, the applicants were charged with offences punishable under Ss.409/419/420/ 471/472/473/109/34, P.P.C. read with S.5(2) PCA-II, 1947, which were not punishable up to death, hence their bail plea was covered under part(a) of the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Said provision provided that if an accused remained detained exceeding one year without conclusion of trial, the law mandated his release on bail---For the purposes of commencement of time under the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., period for the conclusion of the trial was to be calculated from the date of the arrest/detention of the accused and it was of little importance as to when the charge was framed and the trial commenced---In the absence of any material to the effect that the applicants were previously convicted, on a tentative assessment, the applicants did not appear to fall under the parameters of hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals---Certified copies of diaries of the Trial Court as available on record also clearly depicted that delay had not been caused in trial due to act or omission from the side of the applicant/accused---Both the applicants were arrested on 16.05.2024 and had remained detained since past more than one year and three months---Prosecutor informed that there were total number of 26 accused involved in this case out of which 6 had absconded whereas 18 accused persons had already been granted bails on different grounds and only present two applicants were presently behind bars---Prosecutor further informed about the position of the trial that 'Charge' had not been framed as yet, whereas the Court was presently vacant---In these circumstances, it appeared that the trial had not even commenced as yet, and the same was not likely to conclude in near future---On a tentative assessment, a case for grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of trial was prima facie made out within the ambit of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Nadeem Samson v. the state and others PLD 2022 SC 142; Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1; Muhammad Usman v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 28; Nazir Hussain v. Zia-ul-Haq and others 1983 SCMR 72; Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State 1998 SCMR 190; Akhtar Abbas v. State PLD 1982 SC 424; Abdul Rashid v. The State 1998 SCMR 897; Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49; Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Behram and another 1998 PCr.LJ 358; Allah Wasaya v. The State and others PLD 2022 SC 541; Shahzad Ahmed v. The State through FIA Islamabad 2010 SCMR 1221; Shameel Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 174; Riaz Ahmed and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau NAB and others 2021 PCr.LJ 1182 and Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman PLD 2019 SC 112 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order being tentative in nature, should not influence the Trial Court to independently adjudicate the case on its own merits. Nisar Ahmed Tarar for Applicants (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1514 of 2025). Saad Fayaz for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1519 of 2025). Muhammad Najeeb Jamali for the Complainant (in Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1514 and 1519 of 2025). Muhammad Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. Muhammad Hasan (Akber), J .--- Through this single order, both the subject bail applications are being decided which have been filed against the common order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, `(Central-II), Karachi in FIR No.16/2024, registered under Sections 409/419/420/468/471/472/473/109/34 P.P.C read with Section 5(2) PCA-II, 1947 at Police Station F.I.A ACC, Karachi, whereby post a risk bill to both the applicants has been rejected.

Summary: (Against the order dated 11.07.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench passed in Crl. Misc. B.A. No. 267-B of 2025). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 406, 489-F & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, criminal breach of trust, dishonest issuance of a cheque, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---It was not disputed that the alleged offences fell in the category of non-prohibitory clause under Section 497, Cr.P.C.---Co-accused was alleged to have entered into agreements with various persons---Whether or not the offences to the extent of the petitioner were attracted required further probe---Complainant and the State had not been able to show any exceptional circumstances so as to decline the concession of post-arrest bail---While considering the grant of bail, where offences fell within the non-prohibitory clause, the grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule, and might be declined in exceptional cases---Extra-ordinary and exceptional cases, inter alia, included likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated---Thus, a case of further inquiry was made out in the present case--- Investigation had been concluded to the extent of the petitioner and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose---Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are based on tentative assessment of the available record and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Farmanullah, S.I. and Umar Badshah, ASI for the State. M. Tariq Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (via video link from Peshawar). Date of hearing: 9th September, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against the order dated 28.04.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Crl. Misc. (BA) No. 193-A of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---Vicarious liability, principle of---Delay in conclusion of trial---Accused was arrested in the FIR in which five nominated co-accused persons were granted bail by High Court---It was still to be determined at the trial as to whether accused had shared common intention with nominated co-accused in committing murder of deceased and causing firearm injuries to two others and he was vicariously liable for the occurrence---Challan had already been submitted but for the last 9 months the prosecution had not examined any witness at the trial---Accused was in judicial custody and was no more required for any further investigation or probe---Allegations levelled in FIR by complainant against accused were to be proved at trial and bail could not be withheld as mere punishment---Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Bail was allowed. Asif Ali Talpur, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Muhammad Asif, DSP and Arshad, Inspector for the State. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 28th August, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 120-B & 34---Qatl-i-amd, criminal conspiracy, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-applicants were that they committed murder of the deceased---FIR was lodged with a delay of approximately two days, for which no plausible explanation had been furnished by the complainant, despite the fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station was merely two kilometers---Although a specific allegation was attributed to the accused, assigning him the direct role of causing firearm injury to the deceased, accused raised a plea of alibi which, upon investigation, was found to be substantiated---Investigating Officer collected the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the accused's mobile phone, which established his presence at a location distant from the scene of the incident---Investigating Officer collected an audio recording of a telephonic conversation between accused, co-accused, and the deceased---On the basis of said telephonic conversation, it stood established that the accused were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Relying upon this evidence, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicants and placed their names in column No. 2 of the police report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C.---In the present matter, the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient material substantiating the defence version of the accused persons and, on the basis of the said reports, had placed their names in column No. 2 of the challan---Consequently, the case of the applicants/accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C---Applicants/accused had been in custody for approximately one year and no substantial progress had been made in the proceedings before the Trial Court---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Chaudhry Nadeem Sultan v. The State through PG Punjab and another 2022 SCMR 663; Akhter Ali and others v. State PLD 2008 SC 269; Gulzada v. Gul and another 2019 PCr.LJ 1627; Hajan and another v. The State 2014 PCr.LJ 1123; Fahad Hussain and another v. State through Prosecutor General Sindh 2023 SCMR 364; Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 18; Resham Khan and another v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another 2021 SCMR 2011; Mumtaz v. The State 2012 SCMR 556; Itbar Muhammad v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1576; Sher Muhammad v. The State 2008 SCMR 1451; Shoukat Ilahi v. Javed Iqbal and others 2010 SCMR 966; Liaquat Ali v. The State PLD 1994 SC 172; Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another 1997 SCMR 1275; Syed Ashiq Hussain Shah v. The State 2011 PCr.LJ 1665 and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Jamil v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1859 ref. Nadeem Sultan v. The State 2022 SCMR 663 and 2008 SCMR 6 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are of tentative nature and would not influence the merits of the case. Ghulam Mustafa Channa and Afzal Kareem Virk for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. S-120 of 2025). Ghulam Abbas Dalwani, Deputy P.G for the State (in Criminal Bail Application No. S-120 of 2025). Abdul Aziz Memon and Azhar Arain for the Complainant (in Criminal Bail Application No. S-120 of 2025). Ghulam Mustafa Channa for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. S-208 of 2025). Ghulam Abbas Dalwani, Deputy P.G for the State (in Criminal Bail Application No. S-208 of 2025). Abdul Aziz Memon and Azhar Arain for the Complainant (in Criminal Bail Application No. S-208 of 2025). Date of hearing: 13th August, 2025. Amjad Ali Sahito, J .--- By this single order, I intend to dispose of both aforementioned bail applications, whereby the applicants/accused namely Jumoon Rahimoon and Liaquat Ali Rahimoon, seek post arrest bail in same Crime No.215 of 2024 for offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 34 P.P.C registered at PS Umerkot City, after their bail plea has been declined by learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot vide orders dated 10-05-2025 and 30-05-2025 respectively.