Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 221---Quashing of order---Amendment of charge---Scope---Complainant lodged FIR against the petitioner for offences under Ss.382, 506, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Trial Court framed the charge for offences under Ss.382 & 506, P.P.C against the petitioners---Complainant instituted a criminal revision petition against the said order, which was accepted and Trial Court was directed to frame charge for offences under Sections 395, 455, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Validity---According to FIR on 17.04.2024 at about 09:00 A.M. petitioners (accused) along with 22/25 unknown culprits, all armed with rifles/pistols, emerged at the petrol pump of complainant---Said accused persons took staff members of the petrol pump as hostages on arm's point and removed CCTV cameras as well as cash amount of Rs.950,000/- and account books forcibly---Said accused persons also snatched arms held by security guards, cheque book and other valuable documents and fled away from the scene---Charge always has to be framed on the prima facie averments of allegations levelled in the FIR, statement of the witnesses under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C.---Offence under S.382, P.P.C and under S.395, P.P.C relate to the same family of the offences, as such from the prima facie averments of contents of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court was supposed to frame the charge for more graver and serious offence---In the case in hand offences under Ss.395/455/148/149, P.P.C were prima facie made out, as such this fact was rightly observed and taken into consideration by the Revisional Court, while passing the impugned order, which was found to be fully in consonance with the facts and law---Petition was dismissed, in limine. Ghulam Haider Buriro v. The State 2018 MLD 469 rel. Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal for Petitioners. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Nasir Hussain, S.I. for the State. Muhammad Fayyaz Mansab for the Complainant. Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J .--- The order dated 30.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jahanian was assailed through the present petition, whereby a criminal revision moved by respondent No.2/complainant against an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Magistrate framing the formal charge, was accepted and order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.11.2024, was set aside and request for amendment in the charge was allowed.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497(1), first proviso---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 342---Dacoity, wrongful confinement---Post- arrest bail, grant of---Female accused--- Entitlement to bail---Scope---Under first provisio to S.497(1), Cr.P.C, a woman accused may be released on bail in non-bailable offence---In the present case, record reflected that subsequent FIR pertaining to main offence of recovery had been registered against both female applicants and in that FIR they were granted bail---The lathis were also not recovered from the present applicants at the time of their arrest---Prima facie, the applicants had no active participation/role as per contents of FIR except their mere presence at the spot---Thus, the applicants (female accused persons) had been able to make out a case for grant of bail---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Ghazala v. The State and another 2023 SCMR 887 and Bahadur v. The State and another SBLR 2025 Sindh 193 ref. Sabir Ali Samo for Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, D.P.G. Sindh for the State. Miss Rizwana Jabeen Siddique for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497---Post-arrest bail---Scope of “further inquiry”---Evidentiary value of statement of co-accused and call data record (CDR)---Accused not nominated in the FIR and no direct evidence available---Disclosure statement of co-accused and alleged confession of applicant before police held inadmissible under Art. 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Statement of co-accused recorded during investigation could not be used against another accused---Call Data Record not found to establish any nexus between deceased and accused and, even otherwise, is not conclusive evidence of guilt---Case of applicant thus fell within ambit of “further inquiry”---Held, when material on record raises doubt requiring deeper examination at trial, bail cannot be withheld merely because the offence is serious in nature---Applicant found entitled to concession of bail. Cited Cases: • The State through Director ANF, Karachi v. Syed Abdul Qayum 2001 SCMR 14 • Raja Muhammad Younas v. The State 2013 SCMR 669 (b) Administration of justice--- ----Principle of liberty---Court observed that an individual entitled to bail should not be detained unnecessarily, since wrongful incarceration cannot be compensated after acquittal---Trial court is to decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by tentative observations made at bail stage. Disposition --- Bail application accepted. Applicant/accused Bibi Siddiqa granted post-arrest bail in FIR No. 08 of 2024, Police Station Saranan, District Pishin, upon furnishing surety of Rs. 600,000/- to satisfaction of trial court. Observations held tentative and not to influence trial.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(5) — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395 — Pre-arrest bail — Cancellation of bail — Principles — Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents in case of alleged dacoity involving snatching of vehicle — FIR registered with delay of over four months — Delay remained unexplained — Record revealed a sale transaction of vehicle on the same date as alleged incident, evidenced by written deed — Dispute found to be civil in nature — Held, cancellation of bail requires strong grounds such as misuse of bail, interference with investigation, or threat to prosecution witnesses — None of these factors present — Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless accused is found abusing concession — Petition dismissed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 497(2), 497(5) — Bail, cancellation of — Further inquiry — Scope — Existence of civil transaction between parties — Documentary evidence showed vehicle in question had been sold to accused — Complainant failed to deny sale or explain FIR delay — FIR appeared to be retaliatory and cast serious doubt on prosecution’s version — Alleged offence required further inquiry — Where dispute appears civil in nature and no mala fide conduct is shown by accused, bail should not be cancelled. Rel. 2019 Cr. Misc. No. 102/2019 (Islam Ullah v. State) ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 489-F — Counter-FIR by accused — Impact — Accused had earlier lodged FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C. against complainant’s brother — Fact of prior enmity and reciprocal litigation suggested mala fide — Held, previous animosity relevant for assessing credibility and motive behind delayed FIR — Strengthens case for bail confirmation and disfavors cancellation. Disposition: Petition under S. 497(5), Cr.P.C. dismissed. Pre-arrest bail confirmed earlier by Sessions Judge found justified. No misuse of bail or tampering with evidence shown.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395— —Pre-arrest bail—Cancellation of bail—Delay in lodging FIR—Disputed ownership—Further inquiry— Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused in a case under S.395, P.P.C., involving alleged snatching of a vehicle—Held, FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of over four months—Record revealed a sale deed executed between the parties on the date of alleged occurrence, evidencing a prior transaction concerning the disputed vehicle—Nature of dispute appeared to be civil, requiring further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail already granted by a court of competent jurisdiction could not be cancelled in absence of misuse or abuse of bail concession. Held, no grounds for cancellation of bail made out; petition dismissed. Cited Case: Islam Ullah v. The State, Cr. Misc. No. 102/2019, decided on 24.05.2019. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497(2) & 497(5)—Principles for bail cancellation—Scope— To recall bail granted by a competent court, strong grounds must exist, including interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or misuse of bail—None of these elements were established in the present case—Held, where prima facie the matter appears to be of civil nature and parties are engaged in counter-FIRs, criminal liability cannot be conclusively attributed at bail stage—Cancellation not justified. Principle: Bail once granted is not to be cancelled unless compelling reasons or clear abuse are shown. (c) Criminal Law—Robbery or ownership dispute—Nature of allegations—Effect— Allegation of vehicle snatching contradicted by existing sale deed showing transfer of vehicle—Accused lodged prior criminal complaint under S.489-F, P.P.C. against complainant’s brother—Held, mutual allegations and counter-cases cast doubt on veracity of prosecution version—Presence of civil dispute weakens claim of criminal robbery—Further inquiry warranted. Held, matter requires adjudication after full evidence; no basis for cancelling pre-arrest bail. Petition dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997): ---- S. 7(1)(h) --- Terrorism charges --- Essential ingredients --- Accused convicted under multiple offenses including S. 7(1)(h) of ATA, 1997 for allegedly detaining an individual unlawfully and later resorting to firing in a public place, causing fear and panic --- Evidence revealed that accused fled upon arrival of the Judicial Magistrate, indicating lack of prior knowledge or intent to instill terror --- No premeditation or specific mens rea to commit an act of terrorism proved --- Mere fear or panic as an unintended consequence of an action does not constitute terrorism unless the act itself was designed to create such fear --- Conviction under S. 7(1)(h), ATA, 1997 was not sustainable and was set aside. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): ---- Ss. 353, 504, 365, 395, 452, 506(2), 220, 342 --- Criminal charges --- Conviction and sentencing --- Material contradictions in prosecution evidence --- Witnesses contradicted each other on key points regarding the location of detention, manner of abduction, and treatment of the alleged victim --- No independent corroboration provided for key allegations, including kidnapping, illegal confinement, and use of force --- Absence of medical evidence despite claims of maltreatment and violence further weakened prosecution’s case --- Non-examination of material witnesses, including hospital staff and shopkeepers near the police station, created doubts in the prosecution version --- Convictions under various sections of the PPC found unsustainable and set aside. (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ---- S. 103 --- Search and recovery --- Violation of mandatory procedural requirements --- Accused allegedly arrested near a public place, yet no independent witnesses from the locality were included in the arrest memo --- Prosecution failed to explain non-compliance with S. 103, Cr.P.C. which mandates the presence of private witnesses for credibility of recovery proceedings --- Such non-compliance cast serious doubts on the veracity of the prosecution case. (d) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872): ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) --- Adverse inference due to non-examination of material witnesses --- Investigation officer failed to record statements of two servants allegedly guarding the detained individual, the hospital staff, and shopkeepers near the police station --- Non-production of independent and material witnesses suggested that their testimonies, if recorded, would not have supported the prosecution’s case --- Inference drawn against prosecution under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984. (e) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ---- S. 342 --- Defense plea --- Accused claimed false implication due to personal enmities with a local influential person and the Judicial Magistrate --- Prosecution failed to disprove the defense version convincingly --- Accused’s explanation created sufficient doubt regarding the motive behind his prosecution. (f) Benefit of Doubt: ---- Standard of proof in criminal trials --- Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt --- Contradictions in witness statements, absence of independent testimony, non-existence of crucial medical evidence, and delay in forensic examination of recovered weapon rendered the case doubtful --- Accused was entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not as a concession. -----Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Wazir Mohammad v. The State 1992 SCMR 1134 • Bashir Ahmed alias Manu v. The State 1996 SCMR 308 • Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 61 • State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 -----Disposition: Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted.

Summary: (Bail Allowed--crime report was lodged nine months and sixteen days after the alleged robbery, without a clear explanation for the delay. The court also observes that no recovery has been made from the petitioner despite his time in police custody) the petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo, seeked post-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 395/342/506-II of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The alleged offense includes the armed robbery of a Toyota Corolla car, cash amounting to Rs. 65,000, and a driving license. The petitioner argues that he has been falsely implicated and presents several arguments in his favor. His counsel asserts that there was a significant delay of more than nine months in lodging the crime report, and no incriminating evidence was found during the investigation. The petitioner claims that the High Court did not adhere to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for the fair administration of criminal justice while denying bail. The State and the complainant oppose the petition, arguing that although there was a delay in filing the crime report, there was no mala fide intent on the part of the complainant. They claim that the complainant personally tried to recover the stolen property and approached the petitioner when he discovered his involvement. However, the petitioner allegedly refused to return the property, leading to the filing of the crime report. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court examines the available record. It notes that the crime report was lodged nine months and sixteen days after the alleged robbery, without a clear explanation for the delay. The court also observes that no recovery has been made from the petitioner despite his time in police custody. Considering the importance of personal liberty, the court concludes that bail should be granted in this case. It states that the petitioner's situation falls within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for further inquiry into his guilt. The court emphasizes that bail should be the rule rather than the exception, especially when based on mere allegations. Accordingly, the court converts the petition into an appeal, sets aside the previous order, and grants bail to the petitioner upon the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Summary: The appellants, Khurram Shahzad, Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Sajjad, appealed against their convictions and sentences for dacoity (robbery) and murder. They were initially tried by the Sessions Court and convicted by the Lahore High Court. The appellants were sentenced to death under Section 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for dacoity, and under Section 396 PPC for dacoity with murder. The High Court altered the death sentences to imprisonment for life while maintaining the other convictions and sentences. The appellants and the complainant filed petitions, which were granted leave by the Supreme Court, leading to the present criminal appeals. The prosecution's case was based on the statements of the complainant, Muhammad Sajjad, and other eyewitnesses. The appellants challenged the prosecution's case, citing material contradictions and discrepancies in the witnesses' statements. They argued that the evidence was based on conjecture and failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense also questioned the conduct of the identification parade and claimed that the recoveries of weapons were planted. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the ocular account, medical evidence, identification parade, and recovery of weapons. The Court noted that the ocular witnesses remained consistent in their testimonies and were cross-examined extensively without significant contradictions being exposed. The medical evidence corroborated the witnesses' accounts. The Court dismissed the appellants' arguments and concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Regarding the recovery of weapons and the identification parade, the Court mentioned that the High Court had already found the recovery of a pistol inconsequential. While the defense questioned the identification parade, the Court noted that the witnesses had identified the appellants during the trial. The Court also referred to the relevant provisions of the law on dacoity, including Sections 391, 395, and 396 of the PPC. In light of the evidence and legal considerations, the Supreme Court upheld the appellants' convictions and sentences, except for the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, which was set aside. The Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 395 & 397 – Dacoity – Identification Parade – Recovery of Robbed Property – Further Inquiry The accused were charged under Sections 395 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for allegedly committing dacoity. The prosecution failed to conduct an identification parade, which is mandatory when the accused are not nominated in the FIR. The mere recovery of stolen property from the accused is insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating evidence. Additionally, no weapons were recovered, nor were any injuries inflicted upon the complainant. Reliance was placed on Gul Rehman alias Gul v. State (2012 YLR 1146), Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali (2002 SCMR 1304), and Muhammad Rafique v. State (1997 SCMR 412). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(2) – Bail – Further Inquiry – Consideration of Lesser Sentence The investigation had been completed, and no plausible evidence was presented to directly link the accused to the alleged crime. Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. allows bail where the case calls for further inquiry. The lesser punishment prescribed under S. 395 PPC is four years, and under S. 397 PPC is seven years, which supports the argument for bail. The court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as punishment, and liberty remains a paramount consideration. Reliance was placed on Shehzore v. State (2006 YLR 3167) and Manzoor v. State (PLD 1972 SC 81). (c) Principle of Bail – Liberty and Punishment: The court reiterated the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment. The liberty of the accused is to be prioritized unless compelling evidence suggests their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in heinous offenses, bail may be granted if the case requires further inquiry. ----Disposition: The bail application was allowed. The applicants were admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds of PKR 500,000 each with PR bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The observations made are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not prejudice the trial's merits.

Summary: Bail granted ---- ''Nomination of accused before Identification Parade - further inquiry'' ---- Background: The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. 547/2020, registered on 18.08.2020, for charges under sections 392, 395, 412, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case involved a robbery where four unknown accused allegedly stole cash, a mobile phone, a motorcycle, and other documents from the complainant on 29.07.2020. The petitioner was nominated as an accused in a supplementary statement on 18.08.2020, nearly three weeks after the crime. ----- Issues: -----1) Whether the nomination of the petitioner through a supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information qualifies the case as a matter of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. ----- 2) Whether the identification parade conducted after the petitioner's nomination and the subsequent recovery of cash impact the petitioner's entitlement to bail. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court granted the petitioner's post-arrest bail based on the following reasoning: ----- Delayed Nomination & Supplementary Statement: The petitioner was nominated through a supplementary statement recorded weeks after the initial FIR, and no source of information was disclosed. This delay and the lack of explanation raised doubts about the petitioner's involvement, leading the Court to conclude that the case fell under the scope of "further inquiry" as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court cited Naeem Akhtar’s Case (1996 SCMR 511), reinforcing the idea that nomination through a supplementary statement without explanation makes the case one of further inquiry. ----- Identification Parade: The petitioner’s identification parade was conducted on 14.09.2020, after his nomination. The Court noted that when an accused is nominated before an identification parade, the credibility of the identification is diminished. The Court referenced Saadi Ahmad’s Case (2011 YLR 689), emphasizing that the evidentiary value of such a parade should be determined during the trial. ----- Recovery of Cash: The alleged recovery of Rs. 30,000 at the petitioner's pointing out would also be subject to trial court scrutiny and did not disqualify him from bail. ----- Other Criminal Cases: The Court noted that although the petitioner had a history of criminal cases, he had not been convicted, which did not automatically disqualify him from being granted bail. ----- Complete Investigation: The investigation had been completed, and the petitioner's custody was no longer required for further investigation, justifying his release on bail. ----- Conclusion: The petitioner's bail application was granted, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 100,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court emphasized that the case warranted further inquiry due to the delayed nomination through a supplementary statement and the lack of corroborative evidence at this stage. ----- Citations/Precedents: Naeem Akhtar’s Case (1996 SCMR 511) Abid Ali @ Ali’s Case (2011 SCMR 161) Saadi Ahmad’s Case (2011 YLR 689)