Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Fatal road accident---Offences under Ss. 322, 337-G & 279, P.P.C.---Further custody/investigation not required---Petitioner-accused sought pre-arrest bail in case registered under Ss. 322, 337-G and 279, P.P.C., arising out of a road accident wherein three persons had died after a Mazda Coaster allegedly hit their motorcycle in rash and negligent manner---Supreme Court observed that although three innocent persons had expired in the unfortunate incident, the material consideration was whether petitioner was still required for extracting further facts or for further inquiry/investigation---Investigating Officer, when specifically asked by Court, failed to give any plausible reason for further requirement of petitioner and conceded that petitioner was no more required for further inquiry or investigation---Held, in such circumstances no fruitful purpose would be served by refusing pre-arrest bail merely for extracting more facts from petitioner. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 322 & 279---Qatl-bis-sabab and rash/negligent driving---Bail before arrest---Nature of offences---Supreme Court observed that offence under S.322, P.P.C. entails diyat only, whereas offence under S.279, P.P.C. is bailable---When these factors were considered together with the fact that petitioner was no longer required for investigation, petitioner was entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Name of accused not appearing in FIR---Allegation of fake driving licence---Effect---Petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR, which was initially registered against an unknown driver---Allegation regarding petitioner possessing a fake driving licence was treated as a separate matter---Supreme Court observed that even if it was assumed that petitioner had a fake driving licence, such offence was bailable and did not justify refusal of pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 498---Bail before arrest---Tentative assessment at bail stage---Supreme Court clarified that observations made in bail before arrest order were tentative in nature and would not prejudice case of either party before Trial Court. Disposition: Petition seeking bail before arrest was converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court; observations were declared tentative and not to prejudice trial.

Summary: Bail denied --- (a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898— ----Ss. 497 & 498—Pakistan Penal Code, Ss. 141, 149, 354-A, 452, 147, 148, 149—Pre-arrest bail—Scope—Extraordinary relief—Conditions— Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case involving house trespass, assault, and outraging modesty of complainant’s daughter—Pre-arrest bail declined by Trial Court and High Court—Validity—Supreme Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances to protect innocent persons from mala fide arrest and abuse of process—Petitioner must establish reasonable grounds showing prima facie innocence, existence of further inquiry, and mala fide intention behind arrest—Such relief cannot be used as substitute for post-arrest bail nor granted as matter of course—Petitioners failed to satisfy mandatory conditions—Pre-arrest bail rightly refused. Cited Case: Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427) (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898— ----S. 497—Pakistan Penal Code, S. 354-A—Prohibitory clause—Heinous offence—Effect on bail— Offence under Section 354-A PPC (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty) falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.—Such offences are treated as heinous and serious in nature—Where accused are specifically nominated in FIR with active roles and supported by statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., bail cannot be granted in absence of exceptional circumstances—Petitioners’ involvement prima facie established—Case did not fall within ambit of further inquiry. (c) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860— ----Ss. 141 & 149—Unlawful assembly—Common object—Vicarious liability— Where accused persons form unlawful assembly and commit offence in prosecution of common object, each member becomes vicariously liable for acts done by others—Common object can be inferred from conduct of accused, weapons carried, and circumstances of occurrence—Specific overt act by each accused is not essential where offence is committed in prosecution of common object—Presence and participation of petitioners in unlawful assembly sufficiently alleged—Liability under Section 149 PPC attracted. (d) Criminal jurisprudence— ----Further inquiry—Scope— Further inquiry arises where tentative assessment creates reasonable doubt regarding involvement of accused—Expression “reasonable grounds” refers to legally admissible and credible grounds appealing to judicial mind—Where FIR is prompt, accused specifically nominated, roles assigned, and allegations supported by statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., case does not fall within further inquiry. Disposition: Criminal Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused; pre-arrest bail declined; observations held tentative and not to prejudice trial.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 498 & 561-A---Pre-arrest bail---Dismissal---Duty of investigating agency---Effect of pendency of petition before Supreme Court---Petitioners’ application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the High Court, yet they remained at large for over six months without any effective effort by the police to arrest them---Held, such inaction by the investigating authorities was a matter of serious concern and undermined the rule of law---Filing of a petition before the Supreme Court does not constitute a legal bar to arrest in the absence of an express injunctive order---Refusal of pre-arrest bail implies a judicial finding that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify protection from arrest, and therefore, arrest becomes lawful and necessary to facilitate investigation---Any contrary practice by police treating such petitions as implied stays is impermissible and defeats the object of pre-arrest bail law---Interim protection from arrest must be specifically sought and granted; it is not automatic---Failure to execute arrest post-refusal of bail was held to be non-compliance with binding judicial orders. (b) Police Practice and Judicial Enforcement ----Investigation---Obligation of police to enforce judicial orders---Circular issued by Inspector General of Police, Punjab---On direction of Supreme Court, I.G. Punjab appeared and confirmed that pending petitions before superior courts do not bar arrest unless an express stay is granted---Circular was issued instructing all police officers to ensure immediate compliance with bail refusal orders and to reissue the directive biannually---Held, delay in enforcement weakens investigation, erodes judicial authority, and fosters a culture of impunity---Police officers are under a legal duty to arrest accused persons promptly upon dismissal of pre-arrest bail; administrative excuses or pendency of further proceedings do not justify inaction. (c) Disposition ----Petition dismissed as not pressed---Petitioners opted to avail appropriate remedies under the law before the relevant forum. Cited Statutes: • Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 498, 561-A Disposition: Petition dismissed as not pressed.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 185(3); Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Ss. 497, 498; Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 – S. 7 —Pre-arrest bail—Delay in nomination—Supplementary statement—Further inquiry—Rule of consistency Petitioner, not named in FIR No. 103/2023, was implicated a month later through a supplementary statement based on social media content (tweets/audio/video clips) alleging criminal conspiracy in the May 9, 2023 events. Supreme Court held that the evidentiary value of such material and its delayed introduction falls within the domain of trial. No recovery made from petitioner; he had cooperated with investigation and alleged mala fide on part of police was not entirely baseless. Held, case called for further inquiry. Additionally, co-accused in same FIR had already been granted pre-arrest bail. Rule of consistency also applied in petitioner’s favour. Cited Case: • Imtiaz Mehmood v. The State, Crl. P. No. 1165/2024, decided 17.04.2025 (applied) (b) Criminal Procedure—Pre-arrest bail—Grant on grounds of further inquiry—Police harassment—Consistency with bail of co-accused Court found no recovery from petitioner nor evidence of abscondence; delay in implication and social media-based accusation necessitated deeper inquiry. Rule of consistency invoked as similarly placed co-accused had already secured relief. Held, ad-interim bail confirmed and petition converted into appeal and allowed. Disposition: Leave granted—Petition converted to appeal and allowed—Ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed Petitioner directed to cooperate in investigation. Observations held to be tentative and not binding at trial.

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

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Pre-arrest bail---Grant of leave to appeal---Petitioner sought leave against High Court order declining pre-arrest bail in offences under Sections 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), and 34, P.P.C.---Supreme Court held that offences under Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(i), and 337-L(2), P.P.C. are bailable, while the offence under Section 337-F(vi), P.P.C., although non-bailable, does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail, therefore, was a rule and refusal an exception---Petitioner would otherwise be entitled to post-arrest bail, thus, no meaningful purpose would be served by requiring his incarceration merely to satisfy procedural formality---Petition converted into appeal and allowed accordingly---Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497 & 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope and principle---Where offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception---Court reiterated that where an accused has a strong case for post-arrest bail, denial of pre-arrest bail would be unjustified and would merely result in unnecessary incarceration---Court emphasized that meaningful administration of justice requires avoiding mechanical detention when entitlement to bail is apparent from record. Cited Cases: • Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) • Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380) • Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through PG Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130)

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 496, 497, 498 & 154---Pre-arrest bail---Foreign offence---Registration of FIR in Pakistan---Double jeopardy---Scope---Petitioner, accused of embezzling funds while employed in Oman, sought pre-arrest bail in Pakistan---FIR alleged that petitioner received cash, a diamond ring, and a bank card from complainant in Muscat, Oman, and instead of fulfilling assigned duties, transferred Omani Riyals into his and his wife’s bank accounts in Pakistan, then absconded---Petitioner argued that registration of FIR in Pakistan amounted to double jeopardy, since complaint had already been lodged in Oman---Held, registration of FIR in Pakistan not barred under S. 188, Cr.P.C., where a Pakistani citizen commits offence abroad---Criminal courts in Pakistan can try such persons if found within the country---Section 403 Cr.P.C. protection (against double jeopardy) only applies where accused has been tried and convicted or acquitted by competent court---No such trial or acquittal/conviction occurred in Oman, thus protection of S. 403 not attracted---Petitioner's objection regarding double jeopardy rejected.(b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 406, 408 & 405---Criminal breach of trust by servant---Misappropriation---Transfer of embezzled funds---Scope---Petitioner, employed as a driver in complainant’s company in Oman, was entrusted with significant cash, jewelry, and bank card---Instead of performing his duty, petitioner misappropriated the entrusted assets and transferred equivalent amount into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan---Held, entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation satisfied ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Ss. 405 & 408, PPC---Petitioner failed to dislodge prima facie evidence of his involvement or establish mala fide on part of complainant---Grant of pre-arrest bail held not justified.(c) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010----S. 3---Proceeds of crime---Offence committed abroad---Transfer of criminal proceeds into Pakistani accounts---Scope---Held, petitioner’s act of transferring embezzled funds from Oman into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan, knowing it was illicit wealth, attracted provisions of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Investigating Officer directed to examine applicability of AMLA provisions for further legal action.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 498 & 497---Pre-arrest bail---Extraordinary relief---Scope---Held, bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession granted only in cases of mala fide or false implication---Where strong prima facie evidence connects accused with offence, and no enmity or ulterior motive is established, bail cannot be granted---Petitioner’s plea of victimization held baseless---Ad-interim bail withdrawn.Disposition: Petition dismissed; ad-interim pre-arrest bail withdrawn.Cited Cases:• Dr. Imran murder case, Islamabad High Court (2022 PCr.LJ 1511)• 2011 YLR 2882• Section 403 Cr.P.C. interpreted in light of foreign prosecution protectionsCited Legislation:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 405, 406, 408• Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 3, 154, 188, 403, 496–498• Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, S. 3

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Personal Appearance of Accused – Mandatory Requirement under Section 498-A Cr.P.C. – Effect of Absence: Pre-arrest bail cannot be maintained in the absence of the accused. In terms of Section 498-A Cr.P.C., personal appearance before the court is a mandatory condition for seeking pre-arrest bail. Failure to attend hearings, even after grant of ad-interim bail, results in dismissal of the petition and recall of interim relief. Reference made to Shazaib v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 886), where the Supreme Court clarified that continuous presence is required throughout bail proceedings. (b) Statutory Compliance – Procedural Rigour – Principle of Mandatory Performance in Prescribed Manner: When the law prescribes a specific procedure for an act, it must be followed strictly. Deviation renders the act invalid. In this context, the Court relied on Attaullah Khan v. Ali Azam Afridi (2021 SCMR 1979), reiterating that procedural requirements under special statutes like Section 498-A Cr.P.C. cannot be bypassed for convenience. (c) Pre-Arrest Bail – Ad-Interim Bail – Nature and Limits: Ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted on first hearing is conditional and does not mitigate the statutory requirement of presence. Such bail is intended only to ensure appearance at subsequent hearings. Non-compliance leads to immediate recall of the interim relief. ----Disposition: Pre-arrest bail petition dismissed due to non-appearance of petitioner. Ad-interim bail granted on 26.02.2025 recalled.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 496, 497 & 498–––Bailable offence–––Pre-arrest bail–––Scope–––Distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences–––Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Ss. 420, 170 PPC (bailable offences)–––Multiple bail petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution due to petitioner’s failure to appear, including one occasion citing a public protest (PTI Jalsa)–––Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed third petition on grounds of non-appearance without appreciating the mandatory nature of bail in bailable offences–––Held, under S.496 Cr.P.C, bail in bailable offence is a statutory right and cannot be refused by the Court on discretionary or procedural grounds–––Court's refusal to confirm bail due to non-appearance in a bailable offence constitutes a legal error–––Bail granted–––Order of Sessions Court set aside. Cited Cases: • Alam Zeb v. The State, PLD 2014 SC 760 • Mumtaz alias Bhutto v. The State, 2021 P Cr. L J 1300 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––S. 498–––Pre-arrest bail in bailable offence–––Judicial discretion–––Held, pre-arrest bail under S.498 Cr.P.C for a bailable offence does not involve judicial discretion–––Court must confirm bail upon surrender or appearance of the accused–––Judicial refusal to confirm such bail constitutes miscarriage of justice–––Procedural default (non-appearance) does not extinguish an accused’s right to bail in bailable cases. (c) Administration of justice––– –––Procedural technicalities–––Effect on rights of accused–––Courts are duty-bound to safeguard statutory rights of accused and not to let procedural lapses defeat substantive entitlements–––Held, where an accused provides a plausible explanation for absence and is charged with a bailable offence, relief cannot be denied on mere procedural irregularities–––Order of Sessions Court was arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ----S. 17; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Ss. 497 & 498 Bailability after amendments—Applicability of Cr.P.C. to NAO trials—Held, following wholesale amendments to NAO, offences under NAO are now bailable; by virtue of S.17 NAO the Cr.P.C. applies mutatis mutandis to NAO proceedings—Consequently, post-arrest and pre-arrest bail are to be governed by Ss. 497 and 498 Cr.P.C., to be first sought before the Trial Court and thereafter before appellate fora—Direct resort to constitutional jurisdiction for bail in NAO matters is no longer the necessary route. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A Fair trial and due process—Delay in conclusion of criminal trials—Prolonged pre-trial detention—Held, “delay” is antithetical to fair trial and due process; inordinate, unexplained delay for no fault of accused attracts constitutional protections to life, liberty, and fair trial—Earlier jurisprudence condemned day-to-day-trial mandates being ignored in NAO matters and recognized release where statutory timelines are frustrated; principle reaffirmed. Chairman NAB v. Nasrullah (PLD 2022 SC 497) relied upon. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----S. 497, third proviso—Statutory bail as of right Nature of relief and pre-conditions—Held, statutory bail on ground of delay is not discretionary; once the limbs of the third proviso are satisfied, bail follows as of right unless the delay is attributable to the accused or persons acting on their behalf, or the excepted categories (hardened/dangerous criminals, prior convicts for death/life offences, terrorism) apply—Period thresholds: exceeding one year for non-capital offences; two years for capital—Accrual of right cannot be defeated on considerations outside the provisos. Muhammad Usman v. The State (2024 SCMR 28) followed. (d) Criminal procedure—Assessment of delay on facts ----S. 497, third proviso—NAO references—Case management Applicants incarcerated about 18 months; no delay attributable to them—Reference filed 18-07-2023; charge framed 15-08-2023; three witnesses partly examined—Supplementary reference filed 17-01-2024; amended charge 21-02-2024 necessitating re-recording—There are 43 accused and 208 witnesses; with separate cross-examinations, practical completion within near time is implausible—Direction to conclude within six months would be ineffectual given stage of proceedings—Keeping accused incarcerated further would risk constitutional violation; statutory right to bail triggered. (e) Bail—Heinousness of offence—White-collar crime ----S. 497 Cr.P.C. Heinousness not a standalone ground to refuse statutory bail—Legislative scheme even permits statutory bail in capital offences upon delay; NAO maximum sentence (14 years) does not alter the statutory entitlement—Purpose of bail is to secure attendance at trial; where evidence is predominantly documentary and investigation is complete, risk of tampering is minimal—Speculative fears of absconsion cannot defeat a crystallized statutory right; adequate surety and conditions can mitigate flight risk. Dr. Asim Hussain v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 631), State (ANF) v. Muhammad Asim Khan (2022 YLR Note 64 Sindh), Hasnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914) referred. (f) Practice and procedure—NAO prosecutions ----Case structuring and delay Court observed NAB’s practice of arraying numerous accused and voluminous witness lists renders trials “never-ending”; emphasized prosecutorial case-management: include only most responsible persons, rely on strongest documentary proof, and minimize witnesses to ensure effective, expeditious trials. (g) Application of third-proviso limbs on record ----S. 497 Cr.P.C. (i) Offences not punishable with death—Satisfied. (ii) Continuous detention exceeding one year with trial unconcluded, and no delay attributable to accused—Satisfied. (iii) Not previously convicted for death/life offences; not hardened/dangerous; not terrorism accused—Satisfied. Result: entitlement to bail as of right. Cited cases: • Chairman NAB v. Nasrullah PLD 2022 SC 497 • Muhammad Usman v. The State 2024 SCMR 28 • Shahid Umar v. Chairman NAB 2019 PCr.LJ 370 • Dr. Asim Hussain v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 631 • State (ANF) v. Muhammad Asim Khan 2022 YLR Note 64 (Sindh) • Hasnain Mustafa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1914 (g) Disposition — Applications allowed—Post-arrest bail granted to Mukhtiar Ali Chandio, Tabish Ali Shah Hussaini, Saood-ul-Haq and Muhammad Adnan Rasheed under S. 497 (third proviso) Cr.P.C., subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 1,500,000 each with PR bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar—Ministry of Interior directed to place applicants’ names on the ECL and ensure immediate compliance—No comment on merits; Trial Court to proceed strictly in accordance with law.