Summary: (Against the orders dated 24.06.2025 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2147-B, 2149-B, 2150-B, 2151-B, 2153-B of 2025, 2155-B, 2152-B and 2148-B of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 320, 324, 337-A, 337-F, 337-L , 353, 354, 395, 436, 506-B, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 188 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, shajjah, ghayr-jaifah, other hurt, assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant, outraging modesty of woman, dacoity, criminal intimidation, damage to property, criminal conspiracy, waging war, disobedience of order by public servant and causing disappearance of evidence---Bail, grant of---Principle of consistency---Applicability---Plea raised by accused was that co-accused persons had already been released on bail---Validity---Material brought on record regarding alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to accused required further scrutiny and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during trial---In view of the principle of consistency, other similarly placed accused persons were granted bail by Supreme Court---Bail was allowed. Salman Safdar, Advocate Supreme Court and Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Mazhar Ali Haider, Advocate for Petitioner (in all cases). Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Special Prosecutor, Punjab assisted by Mudassar Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Javaid Asif, DSP, Mumtaz Kakar, Inspector, Afzal Sandhu, Inspector, M. Ashraf, Inspector and Alam Langrial, Inspector for the State (in all cases). Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab on Court's call. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. ORDER YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ.--- Through these petitions, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi (the "petitioner") has sought leave to appeal against the orders dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. Nos. 2147-B, 2149-B, 2150-B, 2151-B, 2153-B, 2155-B, 2152- B and 2148-B of 2025, whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in case FIR Nos. 852, 768, 1570, 103, 109, 1271, 108 and 96 registered at different Police Stations Race Course, Shadman, Mughalpura, Sarwar Road and Gulberg of District Lahore on 10.05.2023, 11.05.2023, 12.05.2023 and 13.05.2023 ('FIRs') in respect of offences under sections 302, 324, 395, 436, 452, 440, 427, 353, 354, 391, 186, 290, 291, 153, 152, 148, 149, 147, 109, 505, 506-B, 120, 120-B, 225-B, 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-A(iii), 336, 449, 153-A, 153-B, 146, 131, 121-A, 121, 188, 201 and 34 P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and section 11-B of Arms Ordinance, 1965. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The main thrust of the prosecution revolves around the allegation that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy for the commission of the offences mentioned in the FIRs. To this end, the learned Special Prosecutor drew the attention of the Court to the ocular statements of three witnesses, as well as electronic media, and argued that these clearly implicate the petitioner and connect him with the commission of the alleged offences. 4. When confronted with the grant of bail rendered by this Court to Mr. Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Mr. Imtiaz Mehmood, and Mr. Hafiz Farhat Abbas, who were linked to the same occurrence and charged similarly to the present petitioner, the learned Special Prosecutor responded that the case of the present petitioner was clearly distinguishable and, therefore, the principle of consistency would not apply in the instant bail matters. 5. Further, when the learned Special Prosecutor was confronted with the definite findings regarding the merits of the case recorded in the impugned order refusing bail to the present petitioner, he explained that it is by now settled that the findings so recorded in a bail granting order are tentative in nature, to be restricted only to the proceedings of bail and are not considered during the trial of an accused. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned Special Prosecutor. In particular, he emphasized that the principle of consistency had to be applied in favour of the petitioner, as all three accused, namely, Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mahmood, and Hafiz Farhat Abbas, were charged with alleged criminal conspiracy, and thus the case of the petitioner would surely fall within the domain of parity, which had to be positively considered in favour of the present petitioner. He further explained that the cases of the present petitioner were on a better footing, in particular, than that of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary, who had been granted bail by this Court. He pointed out that in the case of Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry, the investigation had been completed and the trial had commenced, whereas in the case of the present petitioner those stages had not yet been reached, and thus, his entitlement to bail is comparatively stronger. 7. This Court has noted that the definite findings recorded by the learned High Court in the impugned order, which go to the very root of the contested claims of the parties. However, without passing any findings on the legality and veracity of the said findings, our concern at this stage is confined only to the fact that such findings have been recorded at the stage of bail. 8. Let this Court pass any findings on the merits of the case which may prejudice either party at trial, it is sufficient to state that the material brought on record regarding the alleged criminal conspiracy attributed to the petitioner requires scrutiny, and the same would be best adjudged after recording pro and contra evidence during the trial. In addition thereto, the case of the petitioner has to be positively considered in view of the principle of consistency, as others similarly placed have been granted bail by this Court. 9. In view of the above, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The petitioner is granted post-arrest bail in the above mentioned cases, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court in each case. MH/I-14/SC Bail allowed.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 201, 202 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 337, 338 & 339---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform, common intention---Pardon to the accused---Scope---Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the father of complainant---Widow of the deceased was also implicated in the case as one of the accused---Prosecution’s request qua producing widow of deceased/accused as a prosecution witness in the trial was allowed---Validity---Provision of S.337, Cr.P.C., described that the Court could tender pardon to the accused at any stage of the trial before the judgment was passed with a purpose of obtaining evidence and in the present case it had been done by the Trial Court---However, it was essential that accused/widow of deceased should have expressed her free consent and willingness to become approver in response to a request made by the complainant/ prosecution or by the Court itself, however, the impugned order was completely silent about the factum that whether widow of deceased (accused facing trial) had ever been given an option to exercise her discretion to become an approver and thereby agreed to record her statement with her free will and consent against her other principal and co-accused---In absence whereof, the requirement of the relevant Sections of law could not be considered to have been duly and legally fulfilled---In the present case, the complainant/son/legal heir of the deceased made request for production of widow of deceased/accused as prosecution witness through the Prosecutor coupled with the factum that she had been charged only under Ss.201/202, P.P.C, therefore, the bar contained in Ss.337 & 338, P.P.C., that no person shall be tendered pardon who was involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl without permission of the victim or, as the case may be, of the heirs of the victim, did not apply to the present case---However, admittedly before the Trial Court neither any application by the accused facing trial qua grant of pardon containing an undertaking that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of deceased was moved nor her consent in black and white floated upon the surface of the available record to show that she voluntarily opted to become an accomplice/approver against her co-accused (including petitioner herein) nor any Section of law could be quoted by the Trial Court in the impugned order under which accused facing trial was allowed to be produced as a prosecution witness because in case she was granted/tendered pardon, the same must be preceded by a condition that she would make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within her knowledge about the murder of the deceased and in case she failed to do so, she had to bear legal consequences thereof in light of S.339, Cr.P.C., etc.---Moreover, by virtue of Art.13 of the Constitution, an accused person could not be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself---Criminal revision petition was allowed, accordingly. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 Sc 53 rel. Malik Haider Ali for Petitioner. Sardar Basharat Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State. Aqeel-ur-Rehman Khan Jadoon for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2025.

Summary: Background: The case originates from an FIR registered under sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at a police station in District Faisalabad. The appellant and three unknown individuals were accused of firing upon the deceased, resulting in his death. One co-accused was acquitted after trial, while the appellant absconded for several years before being arrested in 2006. During the investigation, a pistol was recovered on the appellant's pointation, which was allegedly used in the crime. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302(b) PPC, sentencing him to death. The conviction was upheld by the High Court on appeal, prompting a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) PPC justified based on the evidence presented? -----2- Could the appellant's role in the murder be sufficiently distinguished from the co-accused, especially given the acquittal of one co-accused? -----3- Was the awarding of capital punishment justified under the circumstances, including the appellant's prolonged detention? -----4- Could the absence of corroborative forensic evidence for the weapon recovered cast doubt on the appellant's guilt? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found several key shortcomings in the prosecution's case. Firstly, the delay in filing the FIR was unexplained, weakening the motive and intention attributed to the appellant. The only eyewitness’s testimony did not establish that the murder was premeditated, and the medical report suggested there might have been a scuffle. Additionally, the prosecution failed to link the recovered pistol to the crime, as no forensic report corroborated its use. The Court ruled that the death sentence was unjustified due to mitigating factors, including the appellant's extended imprisonment and the lack of evidence proving premeditated intent. The Court also considered the delay in judicial proceedings and the appellant's prolonged detention, particularly his time in the death cell. Based on these factors, the Supreme Court set aside the death sentence and replaced it with life imprisonment under section 302(b) PPC, considering the time the appellant had already served. ------Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Shabbir v. The State (Cri.R.P. 103/2017) PLD 2013 SC 793

Summary: Bail denied ---- Background: Muhammad Ali Mahar and another petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan for leave to appeal against the order dated 20.11.2023, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad, which dismissed their pre-arrest bail application in FIR No. 34/2023. The FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 34, 201, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC), at Police Station Bhan, District Jamshoro. The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged honor killing of Noreen, the wife of the complainant, Mansoor Ali. ----Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail under the circumstances of the case. 2. The validity of the allegations of honor killing versus the petitioners' claim of suicide. 3. Whether the prosecution demonstrated reasonable grounds for further inquiry. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court examined the arguments and evidence, noting the conflicting claims of suicide versus honor killing. It emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court found no plausible evidence of mala fide intentions by the complainant or prosecution. The retrieved messages and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case of honor killing. The Court highlighted the societal issue of honor killings and the legal provisions addressing such crimes. ----Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Criminal Petition and refused to grant leave to appeal. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners was recalled. The Court noted that the observations made would not prejudice the trial's merits and directed the Trial Court to decide the matter according to the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Rana Abdul Khaliq v. State (2019 SCMR 1129) Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427) Muhammad Akram Khan v. State (PLD 2001 SC 96) Khalil Ahmed Soomro and others v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another (PLD 2021 SC 708) Muhammad Ijaz v. The State (2022 SCMR 1271) Muhammad Iftikhar v. The State (2022 SCMR 973) Fahad Hussain v. The State (2023 SCMR 364) -----Key Legal Provisions: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 34, 201, 109, 299, 302(c), 305, 311, 337-N, 338-E) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 345) Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 9)

Summary: Acquittal upheld --- Background: Faqir ur Rehman appealed against the acquittal of Hussain Ahmad by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Swabi, in the case FIR No.616 dated 05.09.2011 under Sections 302/201 PPC. The case involved the death of Faqir ur Rehman's daughter, Mst. Mahjabeen, who was married to Hussain Ahmad. The incident occurred on 27.08.2011, with the initial report suggesting death due to a gas cylinder explosion. However, Faqir ur Rehman later alleged that his daughter had been intentionally burned by Hussain Ahmad, leading to her death.-----Issues:Whether the death of Mst. Mahjabeen was due to accidental burning or intentional act by Hussain Ahmad.The credibility and timing of the medical report suggesting the use of kerosene oil, contrary to the initial gas explosion narrative.The relevance and reliability of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence in establishing the cause of death.-----Holding/Reasoning:The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no substantial evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hussain Ahmad was responsible for the death. Key points included:Immediate medical care provided by Hussain Ahmad, indicating no malicious intent.Contradictory medical evidence regarding the cause of the burn injuries, with one report suggesting kerosene oil involvement issued five days post-mortem, raising questions about its credibility.The trial court's judgment was deemed to have properly appreciated the evidence, with the appellate court requiring a more liberal approach in reviewing acquittals, as per precedent.-----Citations/Precedents:The appellate court referred to the case "Amir Khan vs. The State and another" (2000 MLD 766 Peshawar), where a medical report was disregarded due to contradictions with established evidence.The Supreme Court's stance in "The State through A.-G. N.-W.F.P vs. Mehmood Khan and others" (2007 SCMR 1390) was cited, emphasizing that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence."Muhammad Shafi vs. Muhammad Raza and another" (2008 SCMR 329) was also referenced, reinforcing the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused in cases of acquittal.----Conclusion: The appellate court dismissed Faqir ur Rehman's appeal due to lack of substantial evidence against Hussain Ahmad, emphasizing the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal proceedings and the heightened presumption of innocence following an acquittal.Quote: ''When Statement of medical expert is found opposed to other confidence inspiring and reliable evidence then such report may be ignored.''

Summary: The acceptance of DNA reports is grounded in the doctrine of the law of individuality, which posits that every object, natural or man-made, possesses a unique identity that is not duplicated elsewhere. This principle is exemplified in the field of fingerprint analysis, where no two fingerprints are identical.The passage refers to the case of Regina v. Onufrejczyk (1955), where Lord Goddard, CJ of England, established the principle that the fact of death in a murder trial can be proven through circumstantial evidence. Even in the absence of witnesses or direct evidence, the corpus delicti (body of the crime) can be established through circumstances that leave no room for doubt.In the context of DNA evidence, the doctrine of individuality is complemented by the doctrine of analysis. The latter underscores the importance of impeccable sampling, correct packing, safe custody, and reliable transmission to the expert's office. The passage emphasizes that improper sampling, unsafe custody, or doubtful transmission can undermine the reliability and credibility of a positive DNA report, rendering it unworthy of reliance in legal proceedings. --- The foundation of the "last seen together" theory was based on principles of probability, cause and effect, and required cogent reasons to establish that the deceased was supposed to be with the accused. Critical factors included the proximity of the crime scene, a small time gap between the sighting and the crime, the absence of third-party interference, motive, and the time of the victim's death. However, the circumstance alone did not necessarily implicate the accused; additional evidence connecting them to the crime was deemed crucial.The judgement referenced legal cases to support this theory, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny due to the potential for the fabrication of evidence. It highlighted a case where last seen evidence had to be corroborated by independent sources, as uncorroborated evidence was considered weak in cases involving capital punishment.The judgement then delved into a specific case, scrutinizing the evidence of last seen together and the recovery of the victim's body. It pointed out various shortcomings in the witness testimony, including discrepancies in the time and place of the sighting. It also questioned the delay in reporting the incident and highlighted inconsistencies in the witness's statements during cross-examination.Furthermore, the judgement discussed the recovery of the corpse on the accused's disclosure, emphasizing the legal limitations on using confessions made to the police. It underscored the importance of proper documentation, such as memos, to establish the admissibility of such statements. In this case, the lack of a memo raised doubts about the reliability of the recovery process.The judgement concluded by questioning the evidentiary value of a positive DNA report, highlighting issues related to sampling, custody, and transmission. It argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, leading to the appeal court's decision to acquit the appellant based on the benefit of the doubt. The death sentence was not confirmed, and the Murder Reference was answered in the negative.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---- Ss. 302(b), 365-A, 34, and 201 -- Abduction, murder, and disposal of the body -- Conviction based on circumstantial evidence -- Appellants were convicted for abducting a minor for ransom, subsequently murdering him, and disposing of the body -- Held, circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including call data records (CDR), DNA analysis, and recoveries made in consequence of disclosures, was sufficient to establish the guilt of two appellants beyond a reasonable doubt -- However, the evidence against three co-accused lacked corroboration, and they were acquitted. Cited Cases: • Imran alias Dullay v. The State, 2015 SCMR 155 • Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan, 2016 SCMR 274 • Hashim Qasim v. The State, 2017 SCMR 986 (b) Administration of Justice: ---- Standard for circumstantial evidence -- Chain of evidence must be unbroken, with one end touching the deceased and the other end reaching the accused -- Any missing link renders the chain insufficient for conviction, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. Cited Cases: • Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain, PLD 2021 SC 362 (c) DNA evidence and forensic analysis: ---- Admissibility and weight -- DNA analysis corroborated the presence of appellants at the crime scene and linked the murder to the accused -- Despite some delays in sending specimens, the DNA evidence was deemed reliable and corroborated by other circumstantial evidence -- Court reiterated the importance of modern forensic tools in criminal justice. Cited Cases: • Mst. Askar Jan v. Muhammad Daud, 2010 SCMR 1604 (d) Sentencing: ---- Capital punishment -- Conversion to life imprisonment -- In the absence of eyewitness testimony, last-seen evidence, or judicial confession, the standard for awarding the death penalty was not met -- Death sentences of two appellants were reduced to life imprisonment as a matter of judicial discretion and in light of mitigating circumstances. Cited Cases: • Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan, 2009 SCMR 502 -----Disposition: Appeals of three co-accused were allowed, resulting in their acquittal due to lack of substantive evidence. Appeals of two main accused were partly allowed, with death sentences converted to life imprisonment, while other sentences and fines remained intact. Murder reference was answered in the negative.

Summary: Acquittal upheld ---- Issue:Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents based on the evidence of identification parade and recovery of ransom amount. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's acquittal of the respondents. ---- The Court found several flaws in the prosecution's case, notably:The identification parade was deemed a nullity due to its joint nature and lack of proper procedure, which failed to ensure the secrecy and reliability of witness identification.The recovery of the ransom amount after two years was deemed implausible and lacked specific evidence linking the recovered money to the ransom, making it unreliable for conviction.The overall lack of corroborative evidence beyond the flawed identification parade and dubious recovery weakened the prosecution's case.Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of fair trial, timely justice, and the fundamental rights of individuals. It highlighted systemic issues such as poor investigation, lack of modern investigative techniques, and delays in the judicial process, urging reforms to ensure justice and protect fundamental rights. ''It is the basic duty of the state under Article 37(d) of the constitution to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate, but also leads to frustration. The basic duty of the judges is to protect the fundamental rights of every person in all circumstances. Judges are under obligations to discharge their duty and perform their functions with open mind, without any influence or pressure. The government must also take steps to curb the trend of registration of false and frivolous litigation; and to ensure that the frivolous litigants are not let off scot-free for such acts.''

Summary: Bail granted---Background:This case involves Criminal Petition No. 495 of 2023 heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the order dated April 17, 2023, by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which denied post-arrest bail to Fahad. The case arises from FIR No. 11, dated January 20, 2023, registered at Police Station Battagram, District Battagram under sections 302/311/201/202/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), concerning the alleged murder of Mst. Riffat Bibi, purportedly by her husband's brother, Janas, and his son, the petitioner Fahad.----Issues:Whether the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence implicating Fahad in the murder, except for a prior application filed by the deceased, justifies granting bail.Whether further inquiry is required given the available evidence.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that although Janas (the co-accused) had confessed to the murder and led to the recovery of the body, there was no mention of Fahad in any incriminating context within the confession or other statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The only piece of evidence potentially relating to Fahad was an application filed by the deceased days before the incident, the content of which was not deemed sufficiently incriminating on its own. Given the lack of substantial evidence against Fahad, the Court found that his case warranted further inquiry.Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. Fahad was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds worth Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 302, 311, 201, 202, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) - These sections pertain to murder, ta'zir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) - This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements before Magistrates.Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. - Discusses conditions under which bail may be granted, emphasizing situations requiring further inquiry into the accused's involvement.

Summary: Background: A case involving the offences under sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 of the APC was registered on 10.08.2022. According to the complainant, an assault occurred at the home of the victim, where the accused allegedly inflicted severe injuries using blunt objects and sticks. The motive was believed to be a familial disagreement. After the registration of the case, the accused sought bail. The District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction granted bail to one of the accused. The remaining accused filed a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which granted bail to some of the accused while dismissing the petition for one accused. -----Issues: 1- Whether the accused, who was denied bail by the High Court, should be granted bail. 2- Whether the bail granted to other accused by the High Court should be cancelled. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case, based on the statements of two eye witnesses, did not clearly support the role attributed to the accused who was denied bail. The discrepancies between the FIR, statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., and court testimonies necessitated further inquiry. The court ruled that since the matter required further investigation, the accused should be granted bail. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of one million rupees and two sureties of the like amount. -----Cancellation of Bail for Other Accused: The Supreme Court found no specific role attributed to one of the accused, who was not named in the FIR but was arrested on allegations of abetment. Another accused had a similar role to an already bailed accused. The court determined that there was no illegality in the High Court’s decision to grant bail to these accused, and thus, dismissed the revision petition for cancellation of bail. ----Citations/Precedents: The case reported as 2017 YLR 1238 was referenced by the counsel for the complainant.