Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)---- ----Electronic evidence---Audio/video recording---Admissibility---Authentication and proof of genuineness---Supreme Court held that electronic evidence may be admissible under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, and may be treated as primary evidence, but its admissibility is subject to strict conditions---Source, origin and manner of obtaining recording must be proved, and expert confirmation must establish that recording was not tampered with, altered or doctored---No audio tape or video can be relied upon by Court unless proved genuine and free from tampering---In present case, prosecution primarily relied upon clandestine audio recording allegedly containing conversation between accused persons regarding payment of bribe, but no additional independent witness or incriminating evidence was available. Cited Cases: • Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 SC 675 • Ahmed Omar Sheikh v. State 2021 SCMR 873 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) / Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002)---- ----Secret audio/video recording---Recording made to trap, humiliate, scandalize, extort or procure evidence---Lawfulness and admissibility---Supreme Court held that recording of a conversation in which recorder is participant may generally not constitute illegal wiretapping, even if other person is unaware; however, recording conversation between two other persons is illegal---Audio recordings as evidence must be relevant, duly obtained and must not infringe rights of parties---Secret recordings intended to humiliate, disgrace, scandalize, outrage, insult, trap or extort an accused or any individual are not to be treated as lawful basis for conviction---Illegality of complainant cannot be used as solitary foundation for convicting accused. (c) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)---- ----S. 23---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 389---Unauthorized surveillance---Capturing image or voice with dishonest intent---Secretly collecting information about private conversation without consent for extortion or illegal purpose amounts to criminal conduct---PECA recognizes unauthorized surveillance, and S.23 criminalizes unauthorized taking, capturing or transmission of a person’s image or voice with dishonest intent---There is a distinction between routine recordings made in ordinary course of duty and recordings made for purpose of laying a trap to procure evidence---Latter category is punishable and cannot be given judicial legitimacy. Cited Cases: • Hakim Ali Bhatti v. Abdul Hakim 1986 CLC 1784 • Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 SC 675 (d) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 14---Dignity of man and privacy of home---Secret recording of private conversation---Constitutional violation---Supreme Court held that inviolability of dignity of man and privacy of home are guaranteed under Art.14 of Constitution---Recording citizen’s conversation secretly and using it as a weapon in judicial proceedings directly violates constitutional guarantee of privacy and dignity---Such practice reduces society to a surveillance theatre where end is treated as justifying means---Where complainant resorts to unlawful surveillance, he may transform from victim into offender, while person against whom such audio/video is leaked may be victim rather than accused. Cited Case: • Hamna Qaiser v. Chairman PEMRA 2024 MLD 243 (e) Islamic jurisprudence---- ----Right of privacy---Prohibition against spying---Surah Al-Hujurat 49:12---Supreme Court observed that right of privacy is firmly embedded in Islamic jurisprudence and constitutional thought---Holy Qur’an commands “Do not spy”---Inviolability of home and prohibition against unwarranted surveillance are foundational principles---Incident from era of Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) was referred to, where even suspected illegality did not justify spying, entering without permission or violating sanctity of home---Privacy is a protected right and cannot be curtailed except strictly in accordance with law. (f) Criminal trial---- ----Electronic/CCTV evidence---Doctrine of silent witness---Distinction between routine CCTV footage and clandestine private recording---Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Zahir Jaffer case, wherein CCTV footage was obtained from permanently installed security system operating routinely at place of occurrence, extracted from original DVR/hard disk by law enforcement, forensically examined by Punjab Forensic Science Agency, and certified to be unedited with affirmative facial recognition---Such evidence was forensically verified, authenticated and primary---In present case, none of those features existed; it was not routine stationary CCTV performing ordinary security function, but secret private recording of conversation by an individual with dishonest intent, sought to be converted into basis for conviction. Cited Case: • Zahir Jaffer 2025 SCP 220 (g) Criminal trial---- ----Private surveillance---Warrantless surveillance by citizens---Judicial legitimacy refused---Supreme Court held that permitting conviction on basis of such secretly procured private recordings would amount to granting general licence to citizens to conduct warrantless surveillance of fellow citizens---Such practice would empower every citizen to act as prosecutor, technician and witness while bypassing constitutional safeguards and investigative procedures---Private surveillance violating law, Islamic principles and fundamental rights cannot be justified or clothed with judicial legitimacy. (h) Criminal appeal against acquittal---- ----Double presumption of innocence---Interference with acquittal---Scope---Trial Court acquitted respondents of offences under Ss.161, 420 and 409, P.P.C. read with S.5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and High Court upheld acquittal---Supreme Court found no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in impugned judgments---Acquitted accused enjoys double presumption of innocence: first before trial and second after acquittal---Acquittal cannot be interfered with except for strong and exceptional reasons, which were absent in the case. Disposition: Criminal Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused; acquittal of respondents No.1 and 2 recorded by Trial Court and upheld by Lahore High Court was maintained.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act (XXXIV of 2018), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Trafficking in persons through forged documents---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-applicant were that she transported the minor to a foreign country by showing the minor as her real son whereas she was not biological mother of the minor---Role and material attributed towards the applicant/”KS” reflected that the child was in her custody when they were intercepted at the airport---Child was being taken to M-(Mozambique) by accused-applicant “KS” by claiming herself as the real mother of the child---During such travel accused/applicant “KS” was carrying identification and travel documents of the child, like birth certificate, passport, visa etc., wherein she was shown as the real mother of the child---For procuring all the referred and other documents, money was received and paid through co-accused persons---Birth Certificate of the child was obtained from the concerned Union Council by her in violation of 'Birth Death, Marriage and Divorce Registration Bye-Laws 2017'---No guardianship certificate by a Court of competent jurisdiction was applied by accused/applicant “KS” for adopting the said child---Victim child was being carried out of Pakistan's territory; and as per statement of accused/applicant “KS”, the child was to be handed over by accused/applicant “KS” in M-(Mozambique) to her husband for her boss---No enmity or mala fide against FIA officials had been pointed out for her implication---In view of the said role and material on record, on a tentative and prima facie assessment, a strong prima facie case with ample material establishedapplicant’s connection along with active participation in the alleged crime of child trafficking, in connivance with other co-accused as an 'organised criminal group' with international links and pointed towards her central role in the whole scheme---In view whereof, no case of 'further inquiry' was made out in favour of accused/applicant “KS”---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Sadiq Hussain and another v. Deputy Director, Federal Investigation Agency and others 2025 PCr. Lj 1145 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act (XXXIV of 2018), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Trafficking in Persons through forged documents---Bail, grant of---Female accused---Old age---Fragile health---Allegations against the applicant/Dr. “MN” were that the birth certificate of the victim child was issued by her, containing information that the accused/”KS” was the real mother of the child---Moreover, a stamp was also affixed on the said certificate, which showed her as working in SSGC Medical Services and Department, which had been verified by the Investigating Officer and had been reported as fake by the said institution, while in reality, she already retired way back in 2016---All subsequent documents, from NADRA and Passport office etc., were prepared based upon such birth certificate---Said applicant on the other hand claimed that she was not present at the time of the birth of the child, since the birth procedure was conducted by a midwife and therefore she issued the certificate in good faith, as per information provided to her by co-accused “YM”---Although the allegedly impersonating stamp might not have much of an impact on the present case, but on a tentative and prima facie assessment, the birth certificate itself was enough to connect her with the crime and take her case out of the ambit of 'Further Inquiry'---Role and material attributed to the third applicant/”YM” was that she actively participated in the crime as the child was given under the care of Lady “L” through “YM”---Arrangements for issuance of birth certificate of the victim child dated 04.09.2024 through Dr. “MN”/applicant was also done by “YM”---Expenses on account of CRC, Passport, caretaker's wages, etc. were borne by the husband of accused “KS” which were paid through “YM”---Lastly, “YM” also visited and took custody of the child from Dr. “L”, the government employee and CEO of the NGO, Nayab Welfare Orphanage---Hence, on a tentative and prima facie assessment, amplematerial in the form of statements, mobile calls, chats and other documents hadbeen collected by the Investigating Officer which connected her with an active role and linked her with the international handlers in M-(Mozambique) and also with local co-accused persons, which was enough to connect her with the crime; hence no case of 'further inquiry' was made out in her favour---However, the only factor, which convinced the court to exercise discretion for grant of bail in favour of these two applicants (Dr. “MN” and “YM”) was that Dr. MN was a retired doctor and widow of advanced age of around 69 years, who was suffering from heart ailment---Whereas “YM” was also an old aged widow lady of around 68 years; and both of them were in custody since past more than three months---Investigating Officer confirmed that challan to their extent had been submitted, whereas further investigation was ongoing---Hence, solely on such considerations of old age and fragile health, the bail applications of Dr. “MN” and “YM” were allowed, in circumstances. Rashid Mustafa Solangi and Imtiaz Ali Jatoi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 2267 of 2025). Shaukat Hayyat, Syed Muhammad Abdul Kabir and Miss Amna Magsi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1810 of 2025). Aamir Mansoor Qureshi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1777 of 2025). Shah Hussain, Assistant Attorney General along with IO/SI Rafia Altaf of FIA, AHT Circle, Karachi for the State. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2025. Muhammad Hasan (Akber), J.--- This common order will decide the subject three bail applications, in view of their inter-connected facts in the same crime. The proceedings were initiated in Crime No.191/2025, registered at P.S. FIA AHT Circle, Karachi for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (Amended 2025), [PTPA] read with Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. Earlier, the bail applications by all three applicants, Kiran Sohail, Dr. Mumtaz Nayani and Yasmin Mawani were rejected by the learned Special Judge (Central-II), Karachi vide common Order dated 23.07.2025, which has been impugned herein.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) & Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ----Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471 & 34, PPC; S. 5(2), PCA—Embezzlement of departmental funds—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt. Convictions of postal officials for alleged embezzlement of Rs.14,931,650/- set aside—On appraisal of record, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; material infirmities and contradictions in the inquiry and investigation rendered the case doubtful—Benefit of doubt extended; acquittal recorded. (b) Criminal trial—Best evidence rule—Withholding of vital evidence—Adverse inference. Department and FIA failed to produce CCTV footage from the treasury room; inquiry officers admitted footage was not obtained or made part of record, and investigating officer neither seized the system nor recorded statements to prove it was inoperative—Non-production of the best available evidence undermined the prosecution case and invited adverse inference. (c) Departmental proceedings—Procedural irregularities—Denial of fair opportunity. Fact-finding inquiry initiated 2–3 months after the incident; witnesses examined in the absence of accused; no statement of allegations served; accused were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses; inquiry members unable to identify governing rules in Post Office Manual—Such irregularities eroded the probative worth of the departmental findings relied upon for criminal prosecution. (d) Evidence—Missing necessary accused—Break in chain of liability. Record showed MR handed Rs.15,000,000/- to Javed Akhtar Bhatti (Deputy Senior Postmaster) for deposit in SBP; preliminary report also noted non-deposit by JAB on relevant dates—Yet JAB was neither arrayed as an accused nor effectively investigated; even his alleged confessional statement was not brought on record—Failure to investigate/arraign the pivotal custodian of the cash created a decisive gap in prosecution’s chain. (e) Documentary/arithmetical anomalies—Cash verification and forms. Physical cash verification was conducted after two months; the treasury form contained facially erroneous denominations (showing “five lac” notes of Rs.5,000/- leading to an impossible total), further casting doubt on the reliability of the accounting trail. (f) Circumstantial and corroborative evidence—Personal bank accounts. Bank managers’ statements reflected negligible balances in accuseds’ personal accounts; absence of unexplained accretions weakened the allegation of personal appropriation of the missing funds. (g) Appellate review—Concurrent findings—Non-reading/misreading. Despite concurrent convictions by the Trial Court and High Court, Supreme Court interfered where critical evidence was ignored, vital witnesses/evidence were withheld, and material irregularities existed—Convictions could not stand on such tainted footing. Disposition—Both Criminal Petitions allowed; convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court (27.06.2019) and affirmed by the High Court (23.01.2023) set aside; petitioners acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

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: 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) Criminal Law – Post-Arrest Bail – Further Inquiry---Bail—Grant of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.—Allegations against petitioners pertain to electronic financial fraud and forgery under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ("PECA") and Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("PPC")—No conclusive evidence linking petitioners to offenses—Held, due to lack of sufficient material at this stage, case falls under "further inquiry" as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.—Reliance placed on Mazhar Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 318), Abdul Qadir alias Ali v. The State (2022 YLR Note 22 Sindh).(b) Bailable Offenses – Right to Bail---Statutory rights—Offenses under Sections 3, 4, 13, 14, and 16 of PECA and Sections 420 and 471 of PPC are bailable—Held, in bailable offenses, bail is an indefeasible right of the accused, and there is no provision in the Code permitting cancellation of such bail—Reliance placed on Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478), Alam Zeb v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760).(c) Retrospective Application of Law – Substantive vs. Procedural Amendment---Statutory interpretation—Whether the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 ("Amendment Act")—which converted offenses under Sections 13 and 14 of PECA from bailable to non-bailable—applies retrospectively—Held, amendments affecting substantive rights operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise—Grant of bail in bailable offenses is a substantive right, not a procedural matter—Therefore, the Amendment Act applies prospectively and does not affect cases registered before its promulgation on 29.01.2025—Reliance placed on Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641), Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Muhammad Azam Katper (2002 SCMR 1023), Muhammad Shabbir v. Quaid-e-Azam University (2022 SCMR 487), Mekotex (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (PLD 2024 SC 1168).(d) Bail as a Substantive Right – Change in Bail Status as a Vested Right---Bail jurisprudence—Conversion of bailable offenses into non-bailable offenses through amendment—Held, bail in bailable offenses is an absolute, vested right and cannot be taken away retrospectively—Changes affecting personal liberty are substantive, not procedural, and therefore do not apply retroactively—Reliance placed on Emperor v. Shreekant Pandurang Ketkar (1943 46 Bom. L.R. 50 (FB)), State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Yadav (Indian Kanoon), Alam Zeb v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 760), Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478).(e) Non-Prohibitory Offenses – Bail as a Rule---Non-prohibitory clause—None of the offenses in PECA or PPC invoked in the FIR fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.—Held, grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses is a rule, and refusal is an exception—Petitioners incarcerated since 07.11.2024—No risk of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence—Bail granted—Reliance placed on Syed Muhammad Ali Jaferi v. The State (2025 SCP 61), Ahmad Shahzad v. The State (2023 SCMR 679), Muhammad Ajmal v. The State (2022 SCMR 274), Ahmad Khalid Butt v. The State (2021 SCMR 1016).----- Disposition:Criminal Misc. Nos. 10519-B and 10278-B of 2024 allowed – Bail granted.Amendment Act, 2025 held to apply prospectively, ensuring no retrospective impact on offenses registered before 29.01.2025.Petitioners released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds of PKR 1,000,000/- each, with two sureties in like amount.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 420---Criminal breach of trust, cheating---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Mala fide on the part of complainant---Allegations against the petitioners were that they misappropriated the golden rings and an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- on the pretext of marriage---According to FIR complainant and his brother got married with the petitioners (sisters) and father of the complainant gave two golden rings to them and Rs.190,000/- for arrangement of marriage ceremony---Bare contents of the FIR did not suggest that entrustment of any property was made to the petitioners, which they misappropriated---Two golden rings and sum of Rs.190,000/- given by father of complainant to petitioners on the eve of their marriage with complainant and his brother could only be considered and treated as gift, as such dispute between the parties happened to be purely of family nature---Complainant claimed that petitioners/accused failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on his part as well as police, which were sine qua non for the grant of pre-arrest bail and those grounds were very much lacking in the present case---However, mala fide being a state of mind could not always be proved by direct evidence---In most of the cases it had always to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case---Both the petitioners were previous non-convicts and they were females, as such social norms of our society did not permit to hand them over into the custody of police, lest the same should put their modesty at stake---Even otherwise, it was not likely to serve any purpose, as nothing had to be recovered at the instance or from the possession of petitioners---Weak and palpable circumstances of the case in hand were sufficient to lead the Court to draw an inference of mal afide on the part of prosecution/ complainant---Petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, in case their arrest was made by police, as such it was appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners---In such circumstances, the petitioners had succeeded in making out a good case for the grant of extra ordinary relief---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to them was confirmed, in circumstances. Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 708; Haji Ghani v. The State PLD 1988 Lah. 507 and Rear Adminral (Rtd.) M.I. Arshad v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 586 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court in any manner. Muhammad Akmal Khan for Petitioners. Khizr Hayat Kamboh for the Complainant. Ghulam Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General, Tahir Khursheed, ASI with record for the State.

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: Cancellation of Bail set aside ---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---Ss. 435, 439 & 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Principles governing cancellation of bail---Addition of new sections to invoke the prohibitory clause---Scope Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West), whereby post-arrest bail granted to him in FIR No. 496, dated 28.07.2023, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 381, and 34, PPC, was recalled on the ground that Section 467, PPC was later added, bringing the case under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The court noted that the investigation officer (I.O) had not included Section 467, PPC in the remand applications but subsequently added it after the grant of bail, which was not disclosed before the Magistrate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) held that bail cannot be cancelled merely due to the addition of a new section if the prosecution’s conduct indicates mala fide intent. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Saeed Ullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) laid down that bail may only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances, such as misuse of bail, interference with prosecution evidence, or likelihood of absconding. The court found that none of these grounds were present, and the prosecution’s act of adding a new section post-bail to bring the case under the prohibitory clause was an attempt to misuse the legal process. Consequently, the cancellation of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge was declared unjustified, and the recall order was set aside. ----- Cited Cases: Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Saeed Ullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) Muzafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz (2004 SCMR 231) The State v. Muhammad Sarwar (2017 SCMR 1993) ----- Disposition: Revision petition accepted—Cancellation of bail set aside—Bail order restored as its recall was based on mala fide and procedural impropriety.