Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376, 377, 342, 506 & 34---Rape, unnatural offence, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, common intention---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations of abduction and unnatural offence were levelled against the accused/petitioner---Apparently the FIR suffered a delay of almost twenty-seven days---Perusal of the document revealed that complainant, a teenage boy, reported the egregious incident on 02-07-2025 and had justified the said lapse of time by stating that he was under serious threat extended by the accused/petitioner---Keeping the said statement of the victimized boy, the record of the case was examined---During the perusal of record, statement of witness caught the attention---Said witness had corroborated the statement of victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for taking leverage---Said witness also stated about some video recording of the alleged abhorrent incident and the alleged threat of the accused/petitioner for displaying the same on social media---Regarding abduction for un-natural lust, the statement of the victim was corroborated by the witness---There was prima facie evidence of abduction and un-natural offence on record and offence under S. 367-A, P.P.C provided capital punishment---Delay in lodging of the report was explained by the complainant and same was corroborated by the witness---Other point regarding age of the accused/petitioner was not convincing---Keeping in view the particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility was out of consideration---Mere fact that accused/petitioner was a juvenile could be considered in other offences, but in a case where the accused was charged for un-natural offence and prima facie evidence supported the allegation, it would be erroneous to declare the accused a juvenile---Without recording and discussing this point any further, lest the Trial Court would get influenced, the matter was left at the discretion of Trial Court---However, keeping in view the gravity of offences, the accused/petitioner could not be granted benefit of him being one year below the age of adulthood at this stage---Bail application being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances. Umair v. The State 2021 MLD 527 and Farman Ali v. The State and another 2018 PCr.LJ 343 rel. Muntazir Abbas for Petitioner. Malik Sherbaz Khan Additional Advocate General for the State. Complainant in person along with counsel Imtiaz Huassain. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 22-A, 173, 190 & 195 --- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 182 --- False Information --- Registration of FIR --- Justice of Peace --- Maintainability --- Instant Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed against order dated 29.5.2025, passed by Single Judge, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Cr. Misc. Application No.655/2024, whereby Cr. Misc. Application, filed against order dated 13.5.2024, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) has been dismissed --- Briefly, facts were that on 18.11.2005 one Mansoor Ali lodged FIR bearing No.410/2005 at Boat Basin Police Station, Karachi, for offences under Sections 506-B, 504, and 34 PPC against petitioner and his father (now deceased) in which they were tried and convicted by Trial Court which was set-aside in appeal and they were acquitted of charge by learned Appellate Court --- Per petitioner, FIR was false and vexatious and during trial proposed accused Muzzamil Ali Sheikha and Mustansar Ali Sheikha (respondents Nos.5 & 6) have recorded false statements against him and his father and based on their evidence they were convicted but learned Appellate Court has acquitted them in appeal --- Petitioner in first instance approached local police for taking action against proposed accused (respondents Nos.5 & 6) under Section 182, PPC and having failed to receive response has invoked jurisdiction under Section 22-A, CrPC --- Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after hearing parties' respective counsel and going through report of police declined to issue direction to SHO to lodge FIR of petitioner against respondents Nos.5 & 6 and dismissed application under Section 22-A, CrPC whereafter, petitioner filed Cr. Misc. Application No.655/2024 before Sindh High Court, Karachi, which too, vide impugned order, was dismissed --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that both Courts below were not justified to decline relief sought by petitioner against accused persons who falsely implicated petitioner in aforesaid FIR, however, after trial, petitioner and his father (now deceased) were acquitted from charge --- According to learned counsel, petitioner and his father were made to face criminal proceedings, which were based on mala fide and resulted in malicious prosecution, which caused damage and injury to their reputation --- Learned counsel further argued that it was duty of concerned Station House Officer ("SHO") to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against respondents Nos.5 & 6 for having recorded their false statements with intention to cause injury to petitioner and his father, so that accused persons would have been convicted under Section 182, PPC for recording false statements --- Respondents argued that in view of proceedings before judicial forums, wherein, no such directions were issued to I.O or SHO for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 182, PPC, therefore, petitioner cannot compel I.O or SHO to initiate such proceedings --- Court held that grievance expressed by petitioner before this Court is against refusal of concerned SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against two accused persons namely Muzzamil Ali Sheikha and Mustansar Ali Sheikha who according to petitioner gave false evidence before Trial Court resulting in conviction of petitioner and his father (now deceased) in FIR bearing No. 410/2005 at Boat Basin, PS Karachi for offences under Sections 506-B, 504 and 34, PPC vide judgment dated 03.03.2008 by court of VIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi (South) --- Court held that order of Trial Court was assailed by accused persons namely Abid Hussain and Ali Adnan Sheikha (petitioner in instant case) in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2008 in court of VTH Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) who vide judgment dated 23.05.2009 set aside judgment of Trial Court and acquitted petitioners with further directions to cancel bail bonds and discharge sureties --- Court held that it is pertinent to mention that petitioner appears to have not assailed aforesaid judgment passed by Appellant Court as nothing has been placed on record to this effect --- Court held that however, petitioners after lapse of 15 years from date of aforesaid judgment approached police authorities to initiate proceedings against Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who according to petitioner recorded false evidence before Trial Court --- Court held that on refusal by police to exceed to request of petitioner, petitioner approached Ex Officio Justice of Peace i.e. VTH Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) by filing application under Section 22-A, CrPC for issuance of direction to concerned SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against aforesaid respondents, however, such application was dismissed after hearing parties in detail vide judgment dated 13.05.2024 --- Court held that petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 655/2024 under Section 561, CrPC before High Court of Sindh, Karachi who after hearing parties and having examined entire facts and relevant law in detail has been pleased to dismiss same --- Court held that though learned Single Judge in aforesaid paras has correctly interpreted relevant provisions of law which do not require any interference by this Court however, in order to further elaborate scope of relevant provisions of law attracted in instant case i.e. Sections 173, 190 and 195, CrPC and Section 182, PPC we may examine same in detail --- Court held that Section 173, CrPC mandates that every investigation pursuant to FIR shall be completed within 14 days however, if investigation is not completed within period of 14 days, officer In Charge of police station shall within 3 days of expiration of such period forward to Magistrate through public prosecutor, an interim report in form prescribed by provincial government --- Court held that I.O after completing investigation as per Rule 24.7 of Police Rules, 1934 can recommend disposal of FIR in Class "A" if case is true but accused is untraceable, or in Class "B" if information given to police is maliciously false, or in Class "C", if matter is non-cognizable or for civil suit or case was filed owing to mistake of fact --- Court held that once such report is submitted before concerned Magistrate of First Class or any other Magistrate specially empowered by provincial government on recommendation of High Court, such Magistrate has power to either accept same or take cognizance of offence reported or to direct I.O to reinvestigate matter and submit fresh report within prescribed period --- Court held that however, Magistrate has no authority to direct I.O for disposal of FIR under A, B or C class as referred to herein above --- Court held that in case I.O after completion of investigation forms opinion that information laid before police by complainant is false, he can recommend disposal of FIR in "B" Class (maliciously false) after recording reasons and submit same before concerned Magistrate, who after perusal of same can accept such recommendation and dispose of FIR in "B" class or issue directions for disposal of case in any other class and can take cognizance of matter and proceed further in accordance with law --- Court held that however, said Magistrate has no authority to issue directions to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against complainant in view of bar laid under Section 195, CrPC which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 187 of Pakistan Penal Code, except on complaint in writing of public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate --- Court held that it may be clarified that in case of registration of FIR information is laid before SHO of concerned police station, then only said SHO is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC in case of false information in appropriate cases, whereas, if such SHO is not available or prevented by sufficient cause to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC then such proceedings can be initiated by superior police officer --- Court held that having examined aforesaid provisions of law we may now explain scope of Section 182, PPC which provides that if complaint is laid before any public servant giving any information which he/she knows or believes to be false with intention to cause or likely to cause, such public servant, to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if true state of facts were known by him, or to use lawful power of such public servant to injury or annoyance of such person then such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to six months or with fine too which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both --- Court held that it may be observed here that incase information laid before public servant with Bonafide belief and knowledge of it being true, same cannot be termed as false unless it is proved in accordance with law through judicial proceedings --- Court held that such information can be termed as 'not proved' and not 'false' and, therefore, same cannot attract penal provision of Section 182, PPC --- Court held that suffice is to state that provision of Section 182, PPC can only be initiated by public servant before whom false information was laid, which resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings and found to be false through judicial process, whereas, such penal provisions cannot be invoked in cases where complainant could not prove allegations by producing sufficient evidence or material in support of such allegation before judicial forum --- Court held that to sum up above discussion in view of hereinabove provisions of law it has emerged that no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 182, PPC for having given false information to public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power, except on written complaint of concerned public servant or his higher authority --- Court held that in case in hand it has transpired that neither I.O formed opinion that information given by complainant is false nor submitted report under Section 173, CrPC before concerned Magistrate for disposal of case in "B" Class, instead report was submitted for disposal of case in "C" Class however, Magistrate took cognizance of matter and convicted accused persons nominated therein through judicial process --- Court held that such judgment of Trial Court was assailed before appellate forum who acquitted accused persons in view of contradiction in judgment of Trial Court --- Court held that however, there was no finding of Appellate Court to effect that information laid before police by complainant was false --- Court held that since there was no opinion of I.O and finding by any judicial forum holding information laid before police by complainant as false, therefore, provisions of Section 182, PPC are otherwise not attracted in instant case --- Court held that any other interpretation to hereinabove provisions of law would result in multiplying criminal litigation out of same criminal proceedings and would open floodgate of filing frivolous proceedings in every criminal case where complainant could not succeed due to any other reason i.e. jurisdictional defect, limitation, insufficient evidence, or benefit of doubt etc --- Court held that in view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of case, we do not find any substance in instant Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal whereas, learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court, Karachi has ably dealt with all factual and legal issues as per spirit of law, therefore, impugned judgment does not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity --- Petition was dismissed accordingly.

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

Summary: Bail granted ---- The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in relation to an FIR (First Information Report) filed under Sections 506(ii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860, at Police Station Bambanwala, District Sialkot. The petitioner was accused of intercepting two individuals on their way home, abusing them, and threatening them with death. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the application of Section 506(ii) PPC in the FIR was justified. ------ 2) Whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail, considering the circumstances of the case. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Application of Section 506(ii) PPC: The court observed that Section 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code is not a valid or separate legal provision. Instead, Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation and covers the intent to threaten grievous harm or death, with the potential punishment extending to seven years in certain cases. The court emphasized that a threat alone does not qualify as criminal intimidation unless it causes alarm to the victim or compels them to act against their legal rights. ------ Pre-arrest Bail: The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime required further inquiry. Since the petitioner had already joined the investigation and there was no justification for keeping him in custody, the court granted the petition for pre-arrest bail. The interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier was confirmed, subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds. ----- Citations/Precedents: Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860: Criminal intimidation. Section 503, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860: Definition of criminal intimidation. Article 10-A, Constitution of Pakistan: Right to a fair trial.

Summary: (a) Jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC): Offenses under Section 376(2) PPC and Section 506-B PPC, even if heinous, do not fall under the definition of terrorism as prescribed in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. As the alleged offense was not linked to acts of terrorism or abduction for ransom, the ATC lacked jurisdiction to try the case. (b) Transfer of Jurisdiction under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: With the promulgation of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, cases involving offenses listed under Schedule-II of the Act, such as Section 376 PPC, are to be exclusively tried by Special Courts established under the Act. Any such cases pending before other courts, including ATCs, must be transferred to the relevant Special Court. (c) Notification of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021: The Federal Government, via Notification No. S.R.O. 2029(I)/2022, designated Special Courts for trying scheduled offenses under the Act. The case should have been transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Malir, which was the designated Special Court with jurisdiction over the matter. (d) Applicability of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018: The appellants argued for trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. However, all Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh were designated as Juvenile Courts under Notification No. SOJI/9-2/2018. Thus, juvenile offenders could be tried in ATCs for offenses within their jurisdiction. (e) Distinction Between Heinous Offenses and Terrorism: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has clarified that not all heinous offenses automatically qualify as terrorism. Offenses that do not meet the criteria of terrorism, even if serious, are not triable by ATCs unless specified in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. (f) Procedural Irregularity in Trial by ATC: The ATC's continuation of trial and conviction post-notification of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, was deemed procedurally improper. The trial should have been transferred upon notification of jurisdiction under the Act. (g) Setting Aside of Conviction and Sentence: The appellants' conviction and sentence by the ATC were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction. The case was ordered to be transferred to the relevant Special Court for trial. (h) Bail Applications: The appellants, who were on bail prior to the ATC's judgment, were granted the right to file bail applications before the transferee Special Court, which must decide them on merit. -----Disposition The appeal was allowed. The judgment and sentence passed by the ATC were set aside, and the case was directed to the Special Court notified under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, for trial in accordance with the law.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—S. 497(2)—Post-arrest bail—Further inquiry—Delay in FIR and contradiction with medical evidence— Accused were charged under Ss. 324, 506(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C., and S. 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013—Bail was denied by Sessions Court—Accused alleged to have caused firearm injuries to the complainant’s relative—Medical evidence showed only two firearm injuries, contradicting FIR which alleged three—Even date of incident as per medico-legal certificate was one day prior to date mentioned in FIR—Such inconsistencies raised serious doubts requiring further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Held, in bail matters, even preliminary contradictions between ocular account and medical evidence benefit the accused and warrant deeper scrutiny during trial, not pre-trial detention. (b) Criminal Law—Recovery of unlicensed weapons—Non-association of independent witnesses—Effect— Firearms allegedly recovered on accused’s pointation, but no private witnesses were associated in recovery, despite recovery being made in public space—Mashirs were closely related to complainant and not residents of locality—Recovery memos were joint and lacked corroborative detail. Held, recoveries not witnessed by independent persons and recovery process conducted in breach of standard safeguards reduce evidentiary value of such recoveries at bail stage—Further inquiry was warranted. (c) Sindh Arms Act, 2013—S. 25—Discretion of trial court—Bail considerations— Maximum punishment under S. 25 is ten years but discretion lies with trial court to award lesser punishment based on facts—Challan submitted; applicants in judicial custody—No prior criminal record or reason to believe accused would tamper with evidence. Held, mere possibility of 10-year sentence is insufficient to deny bail—Nature and context of possession must be considered—Applicants entitled to bail as no useful purpose would be served by continued detention. Disposition: Bail Granted—Applicants admitted to post-arrest bail in FIR Nos. 02/2024, 03/2024 & 04/2024 of P.S. Dilbar Khan Mehar, subject to furnishing surety of Rs.100,000 each and personal bonds—Observations are tentative and shall not prejudice trial court's findings. Cited Precedents: Saeed Khan v. The State, 2011 SCMR 1392 Ali Raza v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1245 Muhammad Ijaz v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1271 Resham Khan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 2011 Syed Abdul Haqi Shah v. The State, 1997 SCMR 32 Dilawar v. The State, 2023 PCr.LJ 1684

Summary: Bail granted ---- Background:The petitioner and ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, sought pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Cr.P.C.) in case FIR No.365/23 dated 05.03.2023. The FIR was registered under sections 186, 353, 148, 149, 212, 506ii, 172, 173 & 174 PPC at Police Station Race Course, Lahore. The petitioner argued that due to serious security threats, he could not safely approach the Court of Sessions without proper security measures. He cited an arrangement in Islamabad for securing his presence in a similar situation and sought interim pre-arrest bail until similar arrangements could be made in Punjab. Interim pre-arrest bail was granted on 11.07.2023.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner, now a convicted prisoner serving his sentence in Adyla Jail, Rawalpindi, can seek bail in absentia.Whether the Court can decide the bail petition on merits in the absence of the accused.Whether the petitioner?s pre-arrest bail can be secured through video link.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that the petitioner, who had been granted interim pre-arrest bail and is now in custody in another case, could seek a decision on his bail petition on merits. It was noted that the presence of the accused is essential for pre-arrest bail on the first hearing date, but the Court has the discretion to decide the petition on merits in his absence. The Court referred to several precedents that allowed for the decision of bail petitions on merits even if the accused is not present due to being in custody in another case. The Court also acknowledged the possibility of securing the petitioner?s presence through video link. Ultimately, the petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds.----Citations/Precedents:Sh. Zahoor Ahmad vs. The State (PLD 1974 Lahore 256)Abdul Majid Afridi vs. The State (2022 SCMR 676)Rais Wazir Ahmad vs. The State (2004 SCMR 1167)The State vs. Malik Mukhtar Awan (1991 SCMR 322)Mst. Salima Bibi and others vs. The State (2000 P Cr. L J 138)Subedar (Rtd.) Abdul Rehman and another vs. The State (1981 P Cr. L J 61)Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri and 4 others vs. The State (1974 P Cr. L J 482)Maulana Fateh Muhammad vs. The State (PLD 1973 Lahore 874)Muhammad Shafique vs. The State and another (2018 YLR 323)Farhan Masood Khan vs. State etc. (PLJ 2021 Cr. C Lahore 550)Shahzaib and others vs. The State (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 886)Shabbir Ahmad vs. The State (PLD 1981 Lahore 599)Noor Ahmad and another vs. The State (PLD 1982 Lahore 214)Muhammad Ayub vs. (1) Muhammad Yaqub and (2) The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 1003)Sadiq Ali vs. The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 589)Zeeshan Kazmi vs. The State (1997 M L D 273)Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 708)Khair Muhammad and another vs. The State through P.G. Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130)Javed Iqbal vs. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424)Muhammad Umar Waqas Barkat Ali vs. The State and another (2023 SCMR 330)Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan vs. The State and others (2023 SCMR 884)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 506, 452 & 34---Kidnapping, abducing or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., criminal intimidation, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with his co-accused persons trespassed the house of complainant, kidnapped her minor daughter for the purpose of illicit intercourse and also took Kalashnikov of complainant's husband---Perusal of the record revealed that the petitioner/accused, along with the absconding co-accused, stood directly charged for a daylight occurrence in a promptly lodged FIR for brazenly trespassing the house of the complainant and abducting her barely 10 years old daughter for the despicable purpose of illicit intercourse---Abductee had not been recovered and remained missing ---Considering the societal stigma associated with such crimes, which patently tarnish the honour of the victim's families for decades, it was highly improbable that the complainant would falsely accuse someone by putting the honour and reputation of his/her family members and the abductee at risk for the remainder of their lives---Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, it could not be reasonably argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated---Abduction of women and/or girls of such tender age, that too, from their own homes for the purpose of illicit intercourse, not only constituted a grave immoral offence, but also amounted to a crime against society as a whole---Such offence was against the religion of Islam, Constitution, morality and was detrimental to children, the most vulnerable segment of a society---Tentative assessment of the record revealed that reasonable grounds did exist, which prima facie showed the involvement of the petitioner in perpetrating the offence---Offence under S.365-B, P.P.C., is heinous and carried capital punishment, falling within the barring provision of S.497 Cr.P.C---Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Imran v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 155; Muhammad Subhan v. The State 2002 YLR 1373; Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali 1999 PCr.LJ 1; Akram alias Akroo v. State 2012 PCr.LJ 1132 and Safdar Ali v. The State 2011 PCr.LJ 765 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----497 & 498---Bail---Observation of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and are limited to the bail plea of the accused---Bail order should not prejudice the mind of the Trial Court during the trial. Hameed Ullah Khan Ahmadzai for Petitioner. Anwar-ul-Haq and Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondent. Abdul Waheed, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2024.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 324, 147, 148, 149, 114, 506 & 504 Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd—Cross versions—Enmity—Medical evidence—Where both parties sustained injuries and filed cross-FIRs, determination of aggressor and aggressed lies within the province of the trial court after recording evidence—Applicant’s alleged blow on injured Muhammad Saleh was medically opined to have been caused by a hard and blunt substance rather than a sharp-edged hatchet as alleged—Discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence created reasonable doubt at bail stage—Case held one of further inquiry within S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Cited Cases: • Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain alias Papu Chaman Patiwala and others, 2011 SCMR 606 • Saqib and others v. The State and others, 2020 SCMR 677 • Khalid Mehmood and another v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool and others, 2013 SCMR 1415 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(2) Further inquiry—Cross version and counter injuries—When both parties claim to have sustained injuries in the same occurrence and the record reveals delay in FIR registration with doubtful circumstances, bail may be granted as matter falls within further inquiry; guilt of applicant to be determined at trial. (c) Rule of consistency—Non-applicability ----Grant of bail to co-accused Co-accused already granted bail—Rule of consistency reinforced, though distinct role attributed to present applicant, yet supporting factors such as conflicting medical opinion, cross versions, and mutual injuries justify extension of same relief on parity and on ground of further inquiry. (d) Tentative assessment—No influence on trial Observations made at bail stage are tentative and shall not prejudice trial court while deciding case on merits; trial court to independently assess evidence and determine aggressor after recording complete testimony. (g) Disposition --- Bail granted—Applicant released on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to satisfaction of trial court—Observations purely tentative.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioner sought post-arrest bail following charges of abduction and coercion under sections 365-B, 506, 344, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), filed in an FIR alleging that he and others had abducted the complainant's sister, forcibly obtained her thumbprint on a marriage contract, and created a forged Nikah Nama. The petitioner argued that the marriage was consensual and supported by the alleged abductee’s earlier statements to the police. Despite a subsequent statement by the alleged abductee indicating coercion, the petitioner contended that her initial statements reflected her true intentions, free from undue influence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner qualifies for post-arrest bail given the conflicting statements of the alleged abductee. -----2- Whether the delay in reporting and the alleged abductee's initial statements supporting the petitioner indicate potential false implication. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Chief Court noted the two-month delay in filing the FIR, finding it unexplained and significant. The court examined multiple initial statements from the alleged abductee, wherein she stated her marriage to the petitioner was consensual. The court also noted a later statement contradicting her initial stance, suggesting potential undue influence. Given these inconsistencies and the possibility of mala fide intent, the court determined that the petitioner’s continued detention served no further investigative purpose. The appeal was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail on submitting a bond of Rs. 200,000 with surety. ------Citations/Precedents: Section 497, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Bail provisions under prohibitory clauses for specific offenses. Section 365-B, P.P.C. – Offense of kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage. Section 506, P.P.C. – Punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 344, P.P.C. – Wrongful confinement for ten or more days. Section 161, Cr.P.C. – Statements to police