Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411 ---- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 382-B & 544-A ---- Murder and robbery—Juvenile accused—Appreciation of evidence—Ocular account corroborated by medical and recovery evidence—Benefit of concurrent sentence. Held, prosecution successfully established that the petitioner, tried as a juvenile, along with co-accused, intercepted the complainant and his son, snatched valuables, and fired upon the deceased, causing his death. Sole eye-witness, the complainant (father of deceased), gave a confidence-inspiring account consistent with the medical evidence and supported by prompt reporting. Non-production of additional witnesses did not impair prosecution case, as quality of evidence prevailed over quantity. Identification of petitioner in sufficient moonlight and motorcycle light was natural and reliable. Cited Cases: • Abdur Rauf v. The State and another (2003 SCMR 522) (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ---- Arts. 71 & 75 ---- Minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence—Effect. Minor variation between the seat of injury in medical evidence (right side of lower chest) and the narration in FIR (right side of abdomen) held immaterial. Eye-witnesses are not expected to reproduce exact details under stress of violent events. Such minor inconsistency did not shake the credibility of the witness. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 392 & 411 ---- Recovery of stolen property—Corroborative evidence—Value. Petitioner’s arrest and subsequent recovery of the snatched motorcycle, deceased’s mobile phone, complainant’s identity card, and Rs.300/- provided strong corroboration to the ocular account. Recovery was witnessed by the complainant and the investigating officer, whose testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 397 & 382-B ---- Concurrent running of sentences—Juvenile offender—Discretion of Court. Since both offences (murder and robbery) were part of the same transaction and petitioner was a juvenile at the time of offence, Supreme Court ordered sentences of imprisonment (except imprisonment in default of fine) to run concurrently. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Convictions and sentences under Sections 302(b) and 392 PPC maintained; however, sentences of imprisonment ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. extended.

Summary: Bail granted ----- a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497 ---- Post-arrest bail ---- Further inquiry ---- Principles and scope. Petitioner was implicated through a supplementary statement recorded ten days after lodging of the F.I.R. against unknown persons for offences under Ss. 457, 380 and 411, P.P.C. Supplementary statement did not disclose any source of information leading to the petitioner’s nomination. Held, that such belated implication, based on undisclosed and unverified information, created serious doubt regarding the petitioner’s involvement and, therefore, the case squarely fell within the ambit of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. It is well settled that “further inquiry” presupposes a tentative assessment of the prosecution material which raises reasonable doubt about the accused’s participation, and where such doubt exists, bail is to be granted. The maxim that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497 ---- Reasonable grounds and further inquiry distinguished. The expressions “reasonable grounds” and “further inquiry” connote distinct thresholds: the former requires legally tenable and admissible evidence appealing to a reasonable judicial mind to show guilt, while the latter arises where the prosecution evidence leaves room for doubt or necessitates deeper scrutiny at trial. In the present case, prosecution failed to produce any tangible evidence or recovery connecting the petitioner with the theft, nor any material substantiating the assertion that he was a hardened criminal. Hence, no reasonable grounds existed to withhold bail. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 173 ---- Expeditious trial direction. Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., having been submitted with only 4–5 witnesses, Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months, ensuring no unnecessary adjournments. Observations in the bail order were declared tentative and not to prejudice either party at trial. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of High Court set aside. Petitioner Abid granted post-arrest bail on furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 100,000 with personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to good conduct and cooperation during trial; Trial Court empowered to cancel bail upon misuse.

Summary: (a) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)--- ----S.10(2)---Prosecutor---Disciplinary proceedings---Pre-condition--- Prosecutor who does not apply his independent mind while taking prosecutorial decisions or giving opinions exposes himself to a legal action by Prosecutor General under S.10(2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 which again regards the prosecutors as public servants--- Provision of S.10 (2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 reinforces independence of criminal prosecution service that until Prosecutor General recommends, no authority in government can take action against prosecutors. (b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)--- ----S. 17--- Code of Conduct for Prosecutors (Punjab) 2016, para 5.12---Public interest---Scope--- Para 5.12 of Code of Conduct for Prosecutors issued in 2016 by Prosecutor General Punjab lays down following factors of public interest which must be kept in mind by prosecutors while applying public interest test; a) How serious is the offence? b) Extent of culpability of offender. c) Circumstances of victim. d) Age and circumstances of offender. e) Impact of offence on community. f) Remorse shown by offender or actions taken by him to undo the wrong. g) Is prosecution a proportionate response? (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394 & 411--- Robbery and recovery of stolen property--- Bail, grant of--- Delay in conclusion of trial---Trial Court framed charge on 29-04-2025 and prosecution was responsible for causing delay in conclusion of trial--- Accused had been behind the bars since 18-07-2023 and had already completed his statutory period of one year--- Accused made out a case for bail not only on merits but on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial as well--- There was no likelihood of conclusion of trial of accused in near future--- Relief on the basis of such right so accrued in favour of accused could not be refused to him unless he was found to be hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, a previous convict for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but no such exception was found against accused--- Bail was allowed, in circumstances. Javid Khan v. Arshad Khan and another PLD 2024 SC 73; Riaz Hanif Rahi and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others PLD 2008 SC 587; Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh, Sindh Secretariat and another v. Prosecutor-General Sindh, Criminal Prosecution Department and others 2012 SCMR 307; The Public Interest we know it’s Important, But Do We Know What it Means by Chris Wheeler. 3; The Public Interest: Its Meaning in Democracy by Anthony Downs; Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 SC 482 and Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal and 21 others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs and others PLD 2024 Lah. 12 ref. Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Akhtar v. Khawas Khan and another 2024 SCMR 476; Shakeel Shah v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1 and Nadeem Samson v. The State and others PLD 2022 SC 112 rel. Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad for Petitioner. Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ijaz, ASI for the State. Complainant in person.

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16268-B of 2025). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457, 380 & 411---Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night with the intent to commit an offence, theft committed in a building, tent, or vessel used for human habitation or property storage, dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they broke the locks of the complainant’s spare parts shop and committed theft of spare parts worth Rs. 20,06,000/----It was an admitted position that no person was implicated in the FIR lodged on 31.08.2024, but after 10 days of its registration, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded by the police in which he, for the first time, implicated the present petitioner on the basis of some information received through a supposedly reliable source, but even the name of his source of information was never disclosed in the supplementary statement or to the police---Thus, the case required further inquiry and unless the trial was conducted and completed, the culpability of the present petitioner could not be proved---Mere statement of the prosecutor that the petitioner was involved in some other similar cases also did not hold water, for the reason that nothing was produced by the Investigating Officer or the prosecutor for consideration to that end---Prosecution had to demonstrate that it was in possession of sufficient material/evidence, constituting 'reasonable grounds' that an accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497,Cr.P.C., while for attaining bail, the accused had to show that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution and/or the defence plea taken by him created reasonable doubt/suspicion in the prosecution case and he was entitled to the benefit of bail---Basic idea was to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him, rather than letting him not behind bars---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed and the petitioners were allowed post-arrest bail, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and should not prejudice the case of either party. Syed Khawar Ameer Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Tariq Siddique, Additional Prosecutor General and Bashir Ahmed, Inspector for the State. Complainant in person. Date of hearing: 9th July, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376, 380, 411 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, rape, theft in a dwelling house, tent or vessel, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witnesses---Effect--- Adverse presumption---Accused were charged for committing rape and murder of the minor daughter of the complainant---In the present case, the first person, who discovered that tragic scene, was younger sister of the deceased, who was merely seven years old at that time---Upon seeing her sister hanging, the young girl immediately ran to inform a neighbourer---In turn, said neighbour promptly called the complainant and told him over the phone about the death of his daughter---Shortly thereafter, the deceased's mother also arrived at the scene, she saw her daughter hanging with the iron rod and she herself brought down the dead body---However, astonishingly none of those three key persons, the younger sister of the deceased, the neighbourer and the mother of deceased was produced before the Court as a witness to testify regarding what they had seen---Prosecution did not put forward the explanation for what reasons it failed to produce these crucial witnesses before the Court, thus it withheld the necessary evidence that could have directly established the circumstances, in which the deceased was found---Due to this omission, there was no direct, firsthand evidence available on the record to conclusively prove that the deceased was indeed found hanging with the iron rod by a dupatta as claimed---Therefore, the failure to produce those primary witnesses created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Moreover, adverse inference was drawn under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had such witnesses been produced by the prosecution during the trial, they would not have supported the prosecution's case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 662 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376, 380, 411 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rape, theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Credibility of the prosecution case suspicious---Accused were charged for committing rape and murder of the minor daughter of the complainant---During cross-examination, Investigating Officer admitted that the place of occurrence was a small house, measuring approximately 2½/3 marlas and complainant during cross-examination also confirmed the same and further admitted that allthe family members including one sister, three brothers, mother, wife and four children were residing in the small house---Although the complainant explained his absence and that of his wife on the day of the occurrence, there was no explanation on the part of the prosecution or any other evidence to establish that the other family members, who were also living in the same house, were absent at the time of the occurrence---In a so small and crowded house, it was highly unlikely that such a tragic incident could take place without the knowledge or presence of other family members---Prosecution's failure to address this critical point seriously undermined the credibility of its case, making the entire prosecution story suspicious---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376, 380, 411 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rape, theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of handkerchief and stolen jewellery---Not supported by credible evidence---Accused were charged for committing rape and murder of the minor daughter of the complainant---During the visit of Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence, the complainant handed over a white handkerchief that reportedly contained human hair, saliva stains and sweat marks---However, that alleged evidence was not discovered or recovered by the Investigating Officer through any independent or professional means---Instead, the complainant claimed that he had personally collected the handkerchief with the help of one “IK”, who was later examined as court witness---Handkerchief was formally taken into possession vide a recovery memo. and both the complainant and “IK” signed that memo---Investigating Officer also recorded statement of “IK” under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Said “IK” was placed in the column of the witnesses but he did not appear before the Court, therefore, he was summoned by the Court and he while appearing as court witness did not support the recovery process rather he denied having any knowledge about the incident altogether---Said contradiction raised serious doubt about the authenticity of the recovery of the handkerchief, which allegedly contained key forensic evidence and the recovery of the stolen artificial jewellery---Since the recovery was not supported by any independent witness or credible evidence and appeared to rely solely on the complainant's version, contradicted by court witness, it casted a shadow of suspicion over the prosecution's version---Recovery process, therefore, seemed to be artificial and possibly fabricated---When the evidence lacked independent corroboration and raised significant doubts, it could not be deemed reliable or safe to form the basis for a conviction or to support the prosecution's case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376, 380, 411 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rape, theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of Court witness at the venue doubtful---Chance witness, evidence of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing rape and murder of the minor daughter of the complainant---Court witness appeared before the Court as a chance witness who, according to prosecution's version, happened to be present at the complainant's house at about 12:30 p.m. on the day of the alleged incident---Said witness claimed to observe one door of the house to be locked and the other slightly opened---Said witness allegedly saw appellants leaving the house through the back side of the courtyard---However, said witness in his statement contradicted the prosecution's version entirely---Court witness clearly denied any knowledge of the incident and stated that he had no connection whatsoever with the case---Such sharp contradiction between what the prosecution claimed, what court witness witnessed and what he said under oath significantly undermined the reliability of the prosecution's story---Fact that a key witness disowned the very events he was purported to have witnessed, created serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution's version---Such a material discrepancy damaged the case's credibility, reflecting either a false implication or manipulation of facts---Therefore, testimony of Court Witness, instead of supporting the prosecution, raised major concerns about the authenticity of their narrative and rendered their case highly doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376, 380, 411 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rape, theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Postmortem report of the deceased doubtful---Accused were charged for committing rape and murder of the minor daughter of the complainant---According to the post mortem report, the cause of death was concluded to be by strangulation---However, while examining the physical condition of the deceased's body by Woman Medical Officer, certain typical signs usually seen in such cases such as bruising around the neck, protrusion of the tongue, petechial hemorrhages (tiny red spots in the eyes or face) were not found and absence of such signs raised doubts about the accuracy of the medical conclusion---Therefore, the mismatch between the medical opinion and the actual condition of the body created serious uncertainty regarding the real cause of death---Said discrepancy must be carefully considered, as it weakened the reliability of the prosecution's claim that the death resulted from strangulation---Appeal against conviction allowed, in circumstances. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Scope---To convict an accused on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly established and all the circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable possibility of innocence. Fayyaz Ahmed v. State 2017 SCMR 2026 rel. Rao Muhammad Sarfraz and Sardar Ali for Appellant. Ms. Habiba Khalid, State Counsel. Muhammad Akbar, S.I, P.S. Secretariat, Islamabad for the State. Jan Muhammad Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2025. Inaam Ameen Minhas, J .--- Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the above mentioned jail appeal and the jail appeals, criminal appeals and murder reference mentioned in Annexure-A as the same have arisen out of same case FIR No.223, dated 23.09.2020, under sections 376, 411, 302, 380, 34, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad.

Summary: (On appeal against the order/judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.M. B.A. No. 349-P of 2025). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411---Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with his co-accused trespassed into the house of complainant and committed robbery and took away Rs. 27,00,000/- in cash, some foreign currency, gold ornaments, three laptop, etc---Petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2024, however, he was nominated by the complainant on 28.11.2024---Record showed that no identification parade was arranged for---No plausible explanation had been given by complainant as to why the identification parade was not arranged for when in the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the inmates of the house could identify the culprits if brought before them---High Court declined the bail on the ground that the statement of some jewellers was recorded who claimed that the petitioner and the other co-accused had sold gold ornaments to them but surprisingly said jewellers had received stolen articles but were not made accused in this case for offence under Section 411, P.P.C.---Record showed that one USB was given to the Police Officer showing CCTV footage but surprisingly even the said footage was not shown to the complainant and the eye-witnesses to identify the persons mentioned in the said video footage---It was alleged by complainant that two other FIRs had been registered against the petitioner but in the said FIRs unknown persons were shown to be robbers and the petitioner had not been convicted in any case---In such eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further inquiry falling under Subsection (2) of Section 497,Cr.P.C.---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances, and petitioner was enlarged on bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and have no bearing upon any subsequent proceedings before the Trial Court. Shan Asghar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (Through Video Link Peshawar). Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Dilawar Shah, Inspector and Ijaz, ASI for the State. Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2 (Through Video Link Peshawar). Date of hearing: 13th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411---Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Post-arrest bail, refusal of---Sufficient incriminating material, presence of---Petitioners (two in number) were not named in the FIR; they were already lying in the jail where they were interrogated regarding the present occurrence and were found to be involved in the present case---Both the petitioners led to the recovery of cash of Rs.48,00,000/- in toto (while snatching of Rs. 55,00,000/= was claimed by the complainant)---Petitioners were found to be prima facie connected with the crime on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer and their involvement could not be dislodged--- There was nothing on the record to suggest that the case required further inquiry---Both the petitioners were having previous involvement in dozens of cases of similar nature pending against them ---Petitioners were found to be history sheeters and criminals with flags---Bail was declined to petitioners, in circumstances. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 22 & 164---Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Post-arrest bail, refusal of--- Identification parade, non-holding of---Evidence of modern device, availability of---Scope---Holding of identification parade is not a legal requirement in each and every case---Any fact in any form, which establishes the identity of accused is relevant under Art.22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ---Petitioners (accused persons) were visible on CCTV camera recorded clips---Said piece of evidence was admissible under Art.22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 --- It was also to be considered under Art.164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 being an evidence through modern device subject to its genuineness and authenticity---Thus, there was no need of holding of identification parade in the present case in the light of availability of said piece of evidence---Bail was declined to petitioners, in circumstances. Abdul Hadi alia babal and 2 others v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1521; Allah Bakhsh alias Butt v. The State 2009 YLR 1831 and Nadeem v. The State and others PLD 2012 Lah. 415 distinguished. Muhammad Imran Chaudhary for Petitioners. Amjad Javed, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Asif, A.S.I for the State. Complainant in person.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 411 & 34---Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 126---Theft, receiving stolen property, common intention, intentional acts, omissions and negligence of public functionaries---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Per prosecution case, the applicant had purchased stolen property i.e. leads/ wires of T/motors Nos.4, 5, 6, cut off from traction motor channel from co-accused, which belonged to Pakistan Railways---Since such act on the part of the co-accused endangered and humen, therefore, after thorough investigation, the police reached the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence in terms of S.126 of the Pakistan Railways Act, 1890---Evidence collected during investigation revealed that the applicant had not removed or stolen the property in question nor was the member of such gang who actually had committed the offence---Mere allegation against the applicant was that he allegedly purchased said stolen property from co-accused and after recording evidence, if prosecution was successful to prove its case, it would fall within compass of S.411, P.P.C---Bare perusal of said Section of law showed that before securing involvement against the applicant, the prosecution was required to prove that the applicant was not only found in possession of the stolen property belonging to Pakistan Railways but he did so with particular intent or knowledge that he would endanger the safety of the persons traveling by train on particular track---In other words in addition to the actual removal or theft of certain property, the prosecution had to prove the requisite intent or knowledge on the part of the applicant that he was likely to endanger the safety of any person or persons travelling by train on particular track---Mere purchase of said property from co-accused would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the applicant in terms of the provision contained under Pakistan Railways Act, 1890 unless the prosecution further proved it by way of evidence---As per available direct or circumstantial material, no evidence had been brought on record that the applicant did so with intent or knowledge that he was likely to endanger the safety of the persons travelling by the particular train---Prosecution witnesses in their respective statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., had not, in any way connected the applicant with actual removal/theft of the property---In other words, it was an admitted fact that there was no material available on the record to establish that the applicant had either been actually seen by any one removing the said property or seen in suspicious circumstances near the place of occurrence carrying such stolen property immediately after the occurrence---Applicant was not nominated in FIR as an accused, however, he was implicated in this case on disclosure made by the co-accused, during investigation---Upon recovery of alleged stolen property from his shop applicant was arrayed as an accused---Under the circumstances, mere recovery of stolen articles from the applicant and in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, it could safely be held that the offence committed by the applicant fell under S.411, P.P.C. and not under S.126 of Pakistan Railways Act---Only presumption which, therefore, could be raised against the applicant was that he was found in possession of stolen articles which he must have received knowing them to be stolen or otherwise and same was yet to be proved by the prosecution whether the applicant had received or purchased the same knowingly or in good faith---Applicant was not participant of co-accused while committing the offence of theft, however, was found in possession of certain stolen goods and such accusation against him was yet to be established by the prosecution by recording evidence of its witnesses and then the Trial Court had to determine the same against him whether he would be tried for both Sections of law or only for the offence of receiving stolen property---Under the circumstances, the applicant had successfully made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Rizwan v. State 2022 MLD 716; Shahid Ahmed v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ Note 89; Muhammad Tanveer v. The State PLD 2017 SC 733; Arsalan Masih and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1152 and Muhammad Shoaib v. The state and another 2022 SCMR 326 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order aretentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial. Qurban Ali Malano, Israr Ahmed Shah and Syed Naimat Ali Shah for Applicant. Muhammad Aslam Jatoi, Assistant Attorney General for the State.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----Ss. 302(b), 392, 411 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, receiving stolen property, common intention---Conviction based on private complaint and FIR---Acquittal on appeal---Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt---Accused not named in FIR, identification parade held nearly 10 months after incident was jointly conducted and contrary to settled law---Eyewitnesses failed to describe assailants' features in FIR or statements---Medical evidence contradicted ocular version---Held, in absence of credible identification, medical corroboration, and valid recovery, prosecution case was riddled with serious legal and factual flaws---Benefit of doubt extended.Cited Cases:• Sabir Ali v. The State 2011 SCMR 563• Javed Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 524• Kamal Din v. The State 2018 SCMR 577(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 410---Appeal against conviction---Identification parade---Joint identification---Evidentiary worth---Accused placed in same proceedings for identification contrary to settled judicial principles---Identification held unreliable---Delayed parade further reduced its probative value---Witnesses failed to mention time, place, or magistrate conducting the identification during their testimony---Parade proceedings considered unsafe to rely upon.Cited Cases:• Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 SC 142• Gulfam v. The State 2017 SCMR 1189(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:----Art. 129(g)---Presumption against prosecution---Failure to produce supporting evidence---Crime weapon not matched with any recovered shell---Currency notes allegedly recovered lacked identification memo or linkage to robbery---Handbag and cheque books found from canal bank, not from accused---Presumption arose that evidence was withheld or fabricated---Held, recoveries were merely corroborative and insufficient for conviction.(d) Criminal trial:----Benefit of doubt---Standard of proof---Held, prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on preponderance of probability---Material contradictions in ocular account, lack of medical corroboration, and absence of concrete forensic linkage rendered prosecution case doubtful---Benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession.Cited Cases:• Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State PLD 2019 SC 64• Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736• Sajjad Hussain v. The State 2022 SCMR 1540• Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State 2022 SCMR 1567----Disposition:Appeals accepted; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges; sureties discharged.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 497(1), 497(2), 498---- Pre-arrest bail—Rule of consistency—Judicial discretion in bail matters. Petitioner was accused of purchasing stolen goods from co-accused who worked in the complainant’s factory, allegedly causing a loss of approximately two and a half crore rupees—Co-accused, including the principal accused, were granted post-arrest bail—Petitioner was denied pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court—Supreme Court held that the considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are distinct but not absolute, and where an accused would be entitled to post-arrest bail following arrest, the denial of pre-arrest bail would serve no legal purpose—Court reaffirmed that bail in non-prohibitory offenses is the rule, and refusal is an exception, emphasizing the fundamental right to liberty—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal v. The State (2022 SCMR 821), and Javed Iqbal v. The State (2022 SCMR 1424)—Pre-arrest bail granted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 381, 411---- Applicability of theft and receiving stolen property charges—Evaluation of allegations. Petitioner was not an employee of the complainant, thus the applicability of S. 381, PPC (theft by servant) was questionable—Only allegation against petitioner was purchasing stolen goods from co-accused, which falls under S. 411, PPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property)—Supreme Court noted that the entire transaction allegedly occurred over four years, yet the FIR was lodged with a delay of 13 days without explanation—Court held that mere financial loss, no matter how substantial, does not automatically justify denial of bail—Since S. 411, PPC carries a maximum punishment of three years and falls outside the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), CrPC, the accused was entitled to bail. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185(3)---- Scope of Supreme Court’s jurisdiction—Binding effect of precedent. Petitioner invoked Art. 185(3) of the Constitution to challenge the Lahore High Court’s denial of pre-arrest bail—Supreme Court reiterated that it has the authority to correct lower courts' misapplication of bail principles—Court reaffirmed its precedents that pre-arrest bail can be granted where the accused is prima facie entitled to post-arrest bail upon arrest—Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily, especially in non-prohibitory offenses—Lower courts must ensure that bail decisions align with Supreme Court precedents to prevent wrongful detention. (d) Bail Conditions & Judicial Safeguards---- ----S. 498, CrPC---- Pre-arrest bail granted—Requirement of bail bond and surety—Legal safeguards. Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and granted pre-arrest bail—Petitioner directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety—Court reaffirmed that bail does not mean acquittal, and the trial court retains authority to decide the case on merits—Observations in the bail order were tentative and not binding on the trial court—Court emphasized that prosecution retains the right to seek bail cancellation if the petitioner misuses the concession. Disposition: Appeal allowed—High Court’s order set aside—Pre-arrest bail granted. Petitioner admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety of Rs. 200,000/-. Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail may be granted where post-arrest bail would inevitably follow. Liberty of an accused cannot be restricted arbitrarily—Mere financial loss is not a sufficient ground to deny bail. Trial court to proceed without being influenced by observations in the bail order.