Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Post-arrest bail---Grant of leave to appeal---Petitioner challenged High Court’s refusal to grant post-arrest bail in murder case---Occurrence involved cross-versions lodged by both parties regarding same incident---Supreme Court held that in cases involving cross-versions, bail is granted as a rule on the ground of further inquiry, while refusal is an exception---Prima facie both versions were antithetical, arising from the same transaction involving common date, time, location, motive, and parties---Determination of the actual aggressor requires recording of evidence at trial, thus entitling petitioner to bail---Petition converted into appeal and allowed accordingly---Petitioner granted post-arrest bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Cross-version cases---Scope and principle---Where counter-versions exist in respect of same occurrence, it is a settled principle that bail should ordinarily be granted because the question of aggressor or aggressed party is to be determined during trial upon appreciation of evidence---Mere number or severity of injuries cannot conclusively determine liability at bail stage---Denial of bail in such cases constitutes an exception---Prolonged incarceration without substantial progress of trial strengthens the case for bail on constitutional grounds of fair and expeditious trial. Cited Cases: • Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed (1976 SCMR 391) • Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali (1972 SCMR 682) • Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool (2013 SCMR 1415) • Khizar Hayat v. The State (2024 SCMR 1605)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Art. 15, 199, and Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021 Right to freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Due process—Requirement of Federal Government’s approval The Petitioner challenged the placement of his name on the Passport Control List (PCL) under Article 199 of the Constitution, contending that the restriction was arbitrary, unlawful, and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Petitioner was accused in FIR No. 96/23 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. However, his pre-arrest bail petition was withdrawn after the investigating officer found him not guilty. Despite this, his name remained on the PCL based on the recommendation of the Home Department, Punjab, without any prior notice or opportunity for a hearing. Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, requires approval from the Federal Government for placing an individual on the PCL, which was absent in the present case. The court held that such a restriction, in the absence of lawful authority and procedural fairness, violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free movement subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. Therefore, the placement of the Petitioner’s name on the PCL was declared illegal, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect. Cited Cases: Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 PCrLJ 1569 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1020 Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 YLR 2616 Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lahore 119 ----- Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to remove Petitioner’s name from PCL, as its inclusion was found to be unjustified, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Trial—Burden of Proof:----Ss. 302(b), 396, 440, 412, 148, 149 P.P.C.; Ss. 3, 4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908; S. 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997Presumption of innocence—Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt must be given to accused.Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to death on multiple counts by the Trial Court for alleged involvement in the murder of eight police officials and destruction of a police check post via bomb blast—Conviction upheld by the High Court—Supreme Court held that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defense—Where material contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and procedural irregularities exist, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond the shadow of doubt, and conviction was set aside.----Cited Cases:Haroon v. State (1995 SCMR 1627)Muhammad Iqbal v. State (1984 SCMR 930)Muhammad Fazal v. The State (2009 SCMR 436)(b) First Information Report (FIR):Delay in lodging FIR—Manipulation of time to create false immediacy—Reliability of prosecution’s case.Occurrence took place at 3:30 AM, but FIR was lodged at 4:30 AM, allegedly without delay—However, investigation revealed that substantial time was spent arranging for a crane to remove debris and recover bodies—Names of deceased police officials, whose bodies were still under rubble, were mentioned in the FIR, indicating that it was recorded after all formalities were completed—Held, FIR was delayed and backdated to falsely show prompt registration, raising serious doubts about its credibility.(c) Criminal Trial—Eyewitness Testimony:Reliability of chance witnesses—Failure to justify presence at the crime scene—Contradictory statements.Prosecution relied on two chance witnesses, Fateh Sher (PW-15) and Alam Khan (PW-16), who were neither named in the FIR nor residents of the area—They claimed they witnessed the crime but failed to justify their presence at the location at 3:30 AM—Despite witnessing a brutal attack, they did not report it to police and instead went to Chiniot to purchase a buffalo—Court held that failure to report the crime immediately cast doubt on their credibility, and their testimony was not safe to rely upon.----Cited Cases:Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142)Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan (2020 SCMR 319)Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta (2017 SCMR 142)(d) Identification Parade:Joint identification parade—Failure to attribute specific role to accused—Evidentiary value of identification.Identification parade for one of the accused was conducted jointly with another suspect, violating established legal principles—Prosecution witnesses failed to assign specific roles to the accused during the identification process—Court held that joint identification diminished the evidentiary value of the identification parade and created serious doubt about its reliability.----Cited Cases:Kamal Din v. The State (2018 SCMR 577)In the Matter of Kanwar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate (PLD 2019 SC 488)Azhar Mehmood v. The State (2017 SCMR 135)(e) Recoveries & Forensic Evidence:Failure to put evidence to accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C.—Prosecution's reliance on inadmissible evidence.Weapons allegedly recovered from the accused were linked to the crime via forensic reports—However, these recoveries were not put to the accused in their statements recorded under S. 342 Cr.P.C., violating their right to a fair trial—Court ruled that any evidence not confronted to the accused cannot be used against them—Held, recoveries were inadmissible, and reliance on them was misplaced.----Cited Cases:Fida Hussain Shah v. The State (2024 SCMR 1622)Haji Nawaz v. The State (2020 SCMR 687)Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain (2017 SCMR 1710)(f) Motive:Prosecution’s failure to establish motive—False implication by police—Previous enmity.Prosecution alleged that petitioners were involved in terrorism-related activities—However, no prior criminal record was presented—It was established that the local police had a grudge against the accused due to a previous case where the Lahore High Court ordered the release of their relative, who had been illegally detained—Held, false implication due to enmity with local police could not be ruled out, and prosecution failed to prove motive.(g) Supreme Court's Findings:Prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt—Acquittal.Court noted multiple glaring contradictions in prosecution’s case, including:Delayed and manipulated FIR.Unreliable chance witnesses with contradictory statements.Illegal joint identification parade.Failure to put evidence to accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C.Police's possible grudge leading to false implication.Held, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt—Benefit of doubt extended to accused—Conviction set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges.----Disposition:Petition allowed—Conviction set aside—Petitioners acquitted and released forthwith unless required in another case.

Summary: Bail granted ---- The petitioner, sought pre-arrest bail after the Lahore High Court, Lahore, declined his request. An FIR (No. 309/2023) was lodged against him on January 15, 2023, at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore, under sections 448, 440, 511, 427, 148, 149, PPC. The FIR alleged that on the said date, the petitioner and co-accused, armed with firearms, forcibly entered the housing society of the complainant, fired indiscriminately, injuring a passerby, and damaging property including the gate and building of the office. ----Issues: Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. Whether the presence of family conflicts and cross-versions of the incident warranted the granting of pre-arrest bail. Whether the lack of police investigation into the alleged injury of a passerby raised further questions about the petitioner’s guilt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: False Implication and Family Conflicts: The court recognized the ongoing family conflicts over the ownership and management of the Formanites Housing Society, founded by the petitioner’s late father. Given the potential for malafide intentions and false implications arising from these disputes, the court found merit in the petitioner’s claim of being falsely implicated. Cross-Versions and Further Inquiry: The court noted that in cases of cross-versions arising from the same incident, bail is typically granted to allow further inquiry. The petitioner alleged that the complainant party was the aggressor, which required a detailed investigation to ascertain the truth. Precedents cited included Fazal Muhammad (1976 SCMR 391), Shafiq-ur-Rehman (1972 SCMR 682), and Khalid Mahmood (2013 SCMR 1415). Lack of Investigation into Injury: The FIR mentioned an injury to passerby Zeeshan Haider due to the firing, but the police conducted no investigation into this injury. This omission raised further doubts about the prosecution’s case, leading the court to classify the matter as one requiring further inquiry. ----Outcome: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The impugned order of the Lahore High Court dated November 13, 2023, was set aside. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail upon furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 100,000 and a personal recognizance bond of the same amount. The court emphasized that these observations were tentative and that the trial court was free to adjudicate the case independently based on its merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Fazal Muhammad (1976 SCMR 391) Shafiq-ur-Rehman (1972 SCMR 682) Khalid Mahmood (2013 SCMR 1415) ----Notes: The case highlights the importance of a thorough investigation, especially when there are cross-versions and potential false implications due to family disputes. The decision underscores the principle that bail should be granted in cases requiring further inquiry.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Article 199 ----Writ jurisdiction---Virtual presence of accused in criminal proceedings---Scope---Petitioner, a high-profile individual facing multiple investigations and trials, sought permission for virtual attendance via video link citing security concerns and logistical challenges. Held, while the law allows constructive presence through video link in specific circumstances, certain stages of the criminal justice process require physical presence, such as remand hearings, plea recording, and statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. However, non-critical hearings and evidence recording may utilize video link with court approval. Cited Cases: Meera Shafi v. Ali Zafar (PLD 2023 SC 211) Shahzaib and others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 886) The State of Maharashtra and P.C Singh v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (AIR 2003 SC 2053) (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Sections 498-A, 342, 167, 265-C, 353, and 540-A ----Criminal proceedings---Virtual presence of accused---Scope---Constructive presence via video link is permissible during certain stages, such as evidence recording or non-final bail hearings, with court discretion. However, mandatory physical presence is required for critical stages such as: Remand hearings (Section 167 Cr.P.C): Physical custody requires the accused's presence. Bail before arrest (Section 498-A Cr.P.C): Initial filing and final adjudication necessitate physical presence. Charge framing and plea recording (Section 265-C Cr.P.C): Accused must sign the plea physically. Statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C: Accused must be physically present to sign the statement. (c) Modernization of Criminal Justice System ----Judicial reforms---Use of technology---Scope---The judgment highlighted the dire need for integrating modern technologies in Pakistan’s criminal justice system to enhance efficiency and transparency. The court emphasized the adoption of video link facilities for non-critical stages and recommended framing of rules under Sections 365 and 554 Cr.P.C. for consistent application. (d) Fundamental Rights – Fair Trial (Article 10A) ----Security concerns of accused---Balance between fair trial and security---Scope---The court held that allowing virtual presence through video link for certain stages ensures the right to a fair trial (Article 10A) while addressing security concerns and logistical difficulties faced by high-profile individuals. Disposition The petition was disposed of with the following directives: Virtual presence of accused may be allowed for non-critical hearings, including interim bail proceedings and evidence recording, subject to prior court approval. Physical presence remains mandatory for critical stages such as remand hearings, plea recording, and final adjudication of bail before arrest. The Islamabad High Court Registrar was directed to initiate the framing of rules to incorporate modern technology in judicial proceedings for clarity and uniformity. Outcome Petition disposed of; guidelines issued for constructive presence through video link in criminal proceedings.

Summary: (Bail Allowed---while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court) Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that the complainant had cultivated the crop of mint in his land. The petitioners along with another co-accused entered in his land and plowed and destroyed his entire crop and caused him a loss of Rs.125,000/-. the petitioners? party is owner of the land in question where the occurrence took place; they are in possession of requisite title documents and in-fact the complainant party was the aggressor. It is admitted position that a civil suit for declaration qua the land in question is still pending adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction, which was filed about one year earlier to lodging of the instant FIR. In this view of the matter, the possibility of false implication just to pressurize the petitioners? side to gain ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into their guilt. For what has been discussed above, the court converted the petition into appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned order. Bail granted.

Summary: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with his co-accused, allegedly trespassed onto the complainant's plot, demolished a newly constructed wall, and threatened the complainant and his son with dire consequences. The petitioner claimed that he is the rightful owner of the disputed plot and presented documents supporting his claim. He argued that the case against him was a result of false implication and an attempt to pressurize him due to ongoing civil litigation between the parties. The court heard arguments from both parties and examined the available record. It noted that a suit regarding the plot's ownership was pending before a competent court. While the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out, the court refrained from making any conclusive remarks to avoid prejudicing the case. It emphasized that the petitioner's liberty should not be curtailed based on vague allegations. The court determined that all offenses mentioned in the crime report, except for Sections 506(ii) and 440 PPC, were bailable. It explained that the provision of criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) PPC would not apply when an overt act had occurred. The court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned order, and confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner in its previous order dated 28.06.2022.

Summary: S. 487-F , 440 PPC Mere abscondence is not a ground to refuse bail. Mere implication in other criminal cases will not stand as hurdle in the way of releasing of an accused on bail. Matter appears to be civil in nature (bail allowed)

Summary: The petitioner, Matloob Qadir, filed a special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gujrat, wherein the accused/respondents No.1 to 6 were acquitted of charges under sections 440/506/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in connection with a private complaint.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alleged that the respondents, along with their co-accused, demolished a room on his property and raised their own construction while also threatening his family. The trial court summoned the respondents, but some absented themselves and were declared proclaimed offenders. After a trial, the respondents were acquitted by the learned Magistrate.In the Lahore High Court, the only argument put forth by the petitioner's counsel was that the trial court wrongly focused on the issue of possession while acquitting the respondents of the charge under section 440 PPC. However, the judge, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, was not convinced. The judge stated that the possession of the property was continuously with the respondents, and the petitioner's ownership was yet to be decided in the civil litigation pending between the parties. Without establishing wrongful loss or damage caused by the respondents, the charge of mischief under section 440 PPC could not be proven. The judge upheld the trial court's judgment, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.

Summary: ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 392, 440 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd,assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, robbery,mischief, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitig