Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1)---Prohibitory clause---Scope and determination---Whether “minimum” or “maximum” statutory punishment controls applicability of prohibitory clause---Held, where statute prescribes a sentencing range with a mandatory minimum and higher maximum (in this case, nine to fourteen years under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997), the offence falls within the prohibitory clause if the maximum sentence equals or exceeds ten years---The maximum punishment, not the minimum, governs the inquiry for purposes of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---High Court fell into error by treating nine-year minimum as a discrete “lesser punishment” and concluding that the case lay outside the prohibitory clause---Such reasoning misconstrues the legislative intent and statutory structure---Proper test is whether the maximum punishment prescribed by law attracts the clause. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c) [as amended on 06.09.2022]---Punishment “not less than nine years and may extend to fourteen years”---Interpretation---Statute does not create two distinct punishments but fixes a lower and upper limit---For determining application of the prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., the upper limit of fourteen years is controlling---Minimum term only sets a sentencing floor below which Court cannot go---To treat it as a “lesser alternative punishment” is contrary to settled law. (c) Bail ----Grant of bail in offences falling within prohibitory clause---Discretion and exceptional grounds---Even where prohibitory clause applies, bail may be granted on well-recognised exceptional considerations, such as further inquiry under S. 497(2), mala fides, false implication, glaring infirmities, or violation of statutory requirements (e.g., chain of custody)---However, in the present case, no perversity or misuse of concession shown---Order granting bail not recalled, though reasoning corrected. (d) Appellate jurisdiction---Interference with bail orders ----Principles---Supreme Court generally refrains from interfering with bail once granted unless order is perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading of record---Though High Court erred in reasoning, no such perversity found---Bail maintained but reasons substituted. Held: High Court’s reasoning that offence under S. 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997, falls outside prohibitory clause because minimum punishment was nine years, was erroneous. For determining applicability of prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., maximum punishment prescribed (fourteen years) is decisive. Petition disposed of; impugned order of bail maintained to extent of relief but reasons substituted. Trial Court directed to decide case expeditiously on merits, uninfluenced by observations herein. Cited Cases: Jabran and another v. The State through DG FIA & others, 2025 SCMR 1099 Muhammad Haroon v. The State, 2004 SCMR 89 Jamal-ud-Din v. The State, 2012 SCMR 573 Socha Gul v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1077 Anti-Narcotics Force v. Qasim Ali, 2019 SCMR 1928 Hazrat Amin v. The State, 2020 SCMR 418 Gul Rehman v. The State, PLD 2021 SC 795 Khuda Bux v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1160 Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, PLD 2009 Lah. 362 Majid Ali v. The State, 2022 PCr.LJ 981 Disposition: Petition disposed of—bail order maintained; reasoning corrected.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure----Cancellation of bail---Scope---Principles---Post-arrest bail---Reappraisal of evidence---Test identification parade---Delay---Scope of appellate interference---Respondent No.1 was granted post-arrest bail by the High Court in a murder case registered under Ss. 302/427/109/34, P.P.C., based on the finding that the test identification parade was conducted after a delay of seven months from the occurrence and its evidentiary value would be assessed during trial---Recovery of Kalashnikov was held to be corroborative in nature, not sufficient alone to deny bail---Petitioner sought cancellation of bail on the ground that it was improperly granted---Held, cancellation of bail is permissible where there is: (i) misuse of bail (e.g. intimidation, tampering of evidence, reoffending), or (ii) a perverse or arbitrary bail order passed without proper application of mind or contrary to established principles of bail---Courts do not undertake deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage and only assess whether “reasonable grounds” exist for believing the accused is guilty---No new facts or perverse reasoning identified in the High Court’s order to justify cancellation---Impugned order neither arbitrary nor in disregard of settled principles of bail---No interference warranted.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal declined.Cited Cases:• Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11• Sidra Abbas v. State 2020 SCMR 2089• Farid v. Ghulam Hussan 1968 SCMR 924• Khalid Saigol v. State PLD 1962 SC 495Cited Statutes:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 427, 109, 34

Summary: Cancellation of Bail set aside ---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---Ss. 435, 439 & 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Principles governing cancellation of bail---Addition of new sections to invoke the prohibitory clause---Scope Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West), whereby post-arrest bail granted to him in FIR No. 496, dated 28.07.2023, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 381, and 34, PPC, was recalled on the ground that Section 467, PPC was later added, bringing the case under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The court noted that the investigation officer (I.O) had not included Section 467, PPC in the remand applications but subsequently added it after the grant of bail, which was not disclosed before the Magistrate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) held that bail cannot be cancelled merely due to the addition of a new section if the prosecution’s conduct indicates mala fide intent. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Saeed Ullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) laid down that bail may only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances, such as misuse of bail, interference with prosecution evidence, or likelihood of absconding. The court found that none of these grounds were present, and the prosecution’s act of adding a new section post-bail to bring the case under the prohibitory clause was an attempt to misuse the legal process. Consequently, the cancellation of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge was declared unjustified, and the recall order was set aside. ----- Cited Cases: Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Saeed Ullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) Muzafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz (2004 SCMR 231) The State v. Muhammad Sarwar (2017 SCMR 1993) ----- Disposition: Revision petition accepted—Cancellation of bail set aside—Bail order restored as its recall was based on mala fide and procedural impropriety.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Scope---Principles for interference with bail orders---Petitioner sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents in a case under Ss. 324, 109 & 34 PPC---Held, once bail is granted by a competent court, it can only be recalled on strong and exceptional grounds---Petitioner failed to press or prove any recognized grounds such as misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, threat to prosecution witnesses, likelihood of absconsion, or emergence of fresh incriminating evidence---Impugned order granting bail held to be neither perverse nor legally infirm---Petition dismissed. Cited Case Law: • Sami Ullah and another v. Laiq Zada and others (2022 SCMR 1115) • Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt and others (1976 SCMR 360) (b) Penal Code, 1860 ----Ss. 324, 109, 34---Attempted murder---Bail---Grant of pre-arrest bail---Previous litigation and family enmity---FIR registered by complainant alleged that respondents forcibly abducted and injured his daughter by firearm---Held, investigation revealed prior enmity and cross-cases between parties---Respondents produced CDR data showing most of them were not present at the crime scene---Accused had already joined investigation and no further custody was required---Allegations in FIR, though grave, required deeper probe---Pre-arrest bail rightly granted by trial court. (c) Bail---Bail once granted---Cancellation---Effect of liberty ----Principle---Held, bail once granted gives rise to presumption of liberty in favour of accused, which cannot be withdrawn lightly---Courts are reluctant to interfere with such orders in absence of compelling or new circumstances---Discretion must be exercised to protect liberty guaranteed under the Constitution unless clear abuse or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated. Disposition: Bail cancellation petition dismissed---No ground for interference with the pre-arrest bail order of respondents.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Declaration of abscondence; procedural safeguards ----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (as applicable in AJ&K), Ss. 87 & 88 Abscondence must be declared strictly in accordance with statutory procedure—High Court set aside pre-arrest bail solely on observation that appellant had “absconded”—Held, no proclamation under S. 87 nor attachment under S. 88 was issued; without completion of this process, an accused cannot be termed an absconder—Mere absence or travel abroad, even during proceedings, does not constitute willful evasion—High Court’s unilateral declaration was illegal and contrary to law. Followed: M. Afzal v. Abid Hanif (2007 SCR 517); Kareem Dad v. Zaheer (2004 SCR 36). (b) Pre-arrest bail—Cancellation on erroneous premise of abscondence ----Grant and recall of pre-arrest bail—Discretion and equity Trial Court had validly granted interim pre-arrest bail (27-10-2022) after considering facts; High Court, in revision, recalled the order holding that absconders are disentitled to bail—Held, finding unsustainable since appellant was not legally declared absconder; recall of bail on such ground violates settled law and due-process safeguards—High Court’s judgment set aside. (c) Exemption from personal appearance—Effect of subsisting order ----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. 540-A (or corresponding provisions) Record showed appellant was granted exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds of his daughter; order remains unrevoked and is under challenge in pending revision—Departure from country pursuant to a subsisting exemption cannot be treated as abscondence; his conduct consistent with permission granted by competent court—High Court erred in ignoring this material fact. (d) Due process—Sanctity of procedural compliance ----Constitutional and statutory principles Adherence to prescribed legal procedure for declaring absconders is not a mere formality; bypassing it undermines fundamental fairness—Courts must guard against arbitrary deprivation of rights and ensure strict observance of procedural law before imposing disabilities like forfeiture of bail or declaration of abscondence. Cited Cases: • M. Afzal v. Abid Hanif & others, 2007 SCR 517 (abscondence requires statutory procedure). • Kareem Dad v. Zaheer & another, 2004 SCR 36 (mere short absence not willful absconsion). Disposition: Criminal appeal accepted; High Court judgment dated 15-03-2024 set aside; order of Sessions Judge/Anti-Corruption Court dated 27-10-2022 granting pre-arrest bail restored; appellant not legally an absconder—directions issued to proceed in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(5) — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395 — Pre-arrest bail — Cancellation of bail — Principles — Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents in case of alleged dacoity involving snatching of vehicle — FIR registered with delay of over four months — Delay remained unexplained — Record revealed a sale transaction of vehicle on the same date as alleged incident, evidenced by written deed — Dispute found to be civil in nature — Held, cancellation of bail requires strong grounds such as misuse of bail, interference with investigation, or threat to prosecution witnesses — None of these factors present — Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless accused is found abusing concession — Petition dismissed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 497(2), 497(5) — Bail, cancellation of — Further inquiry — Scope — Existence of civil transaction between parties — Documentary evidence showed vehicle in question had been sold to accused — Complainant failed to deny sale or explain FIR delay — FIR appeared to be retaliatory and cast serious doubt on prosecution’s version — Alleged offence required further inquiry — Where dispute appears civil in nature and no mala fide conduct is shown by accused, bail should not be cancelled. Rel. 2019 Cr. Misc. No. 102/2019 (Islam Ullah v. State) ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 489-F — Counter-FIR by accused — Impact — Accused had earlier lodged FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C. against complainant’s brother — Fact of prior enmity and reciprocal litigation suggested mala fide — Held, previous animosity relevant for assessing credibility and motive behind delayed FIR — Strengthens case for bail confirmation and disfavors cancellation. Disposition: Petition under S. 497(5), Cr.P.C. dismissed. Pre-arrest bail confirmed earlier by Sessions Judge found justified. No misuse of bail or tampering with evidence shown.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395— —Pre-arrest bail—Cancellation of bail—Delay in lodging FIR—Disputed ownership—Further inquiry— Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused in a case under S.395, P.P.C., involving alleged snatching of a vehicle—Held, FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of over four months—Record revealed a sale deed executed between the parties on the date of alleged occurrence, evidencing a prior transaction concerning the disputed vehicle—Nature of dispute appeared to be civil, requiring further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail already granted by a court of competent jurisdiction could not be cancelled in absence of misuse or abuse of bail concession. Held, no grounds for cancellation of bail made out; petition dismissed. Cited Case: Islam Ullah v. The State, Cr. Misc. No. 102/2019, decided on 24.05.2019. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497(2) & 497(5)—Principles for bail cancellation—Scope— To recall bail granted by a competent court, strong grounds must exist, including interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or misuse of bail—None of these elements were established in the present case—Held, where prima facie the matter appears to be of civil nature and parties are engaged in counter-FIRs, criminal liability cannot be conclusively attributed at bail stage—Cancellation not justified. Principle: Bail once granted is not to be cancelled unless compelling reasons or clear abuse are shown. (c) Criminal Law—Robbery or ownership dispute—Nature of allegations—Effect— Allegation of vehicle snatching contradicted by existing sale deed showing transfer of vehicle—Accused lodged prior criminal complaint under S.489-F, P.P.C. against complainant’s brother—Held, mutual allegations and counter-cases cast doubt on veracity of prosecution version—Presence of civil dispute weakens claim of criminal robbery—Further inquiry warranted. Held, matter requires adjudication after full evidence; no basis for cancelling pre-arrest bail. Petition dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497—Bail—Cancellation of bail—Principles—Distinction between granting and cancelling bail—Scope—Applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused in murder case under Ss. 302, 109 & 34, P.P.C.—Allegation was that accused/respondent No.2 (Shair Ali) fired at deceased, who died on the spot—Trial Court granted bail on basis of further inquiry due to unclear attribution of fatal injury, existing enmity between parties, and plea of alibi supported by CDR record and affidavits—Held, principles for cancellation of bail are different and more stringent than those for grant—Mere existence of serious accusation not sufficient—No misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, abscondence, or illegality in bail order established—Plea of alibi, rule of consistency, and absence of fatal shot attribution support the Trial Court’s order—No exceptional grounds for cancellation made out. (b) Bail—Cancellation—Grounds ----Criteria—Court reiterated principles laid down in Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Abdul Majid Afridi v. The State (2022 SCMR 676)—Bail may only be cancelled if: (i) bail order is patently illegal or perverse; (ii) accused misuses liberty; (iii) tampers with evidence; (iv) threatens or absconds; (v) repeats offence; (vi) or fresh incriminating material surfaces—None of these grounds present in the case at hand. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302, 109 & 34—Murder—Multiple accused—Injury not on vital part—Further inquiry—Rule of consistency—Scope—Where co-accused were granted bail, and role of accused was similarly placed, rule of consistency justified extension of bail to present accused—Specific attribution of fatal injury absent—Held, case of further inquiry—Bail properly granted. Application dismissed.

Summary: Cancellation of Pre- Arrest Bail Denied --- ----Background:This case involves an appeal in the Lahore High Court, where the petitioner, challenged the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, a juvenile. The incident leading to the case occurred on September 28, 2023, when the respondent allegedly attacked the petitioner with a spade, causing injury. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against the respondent under sections 337-F(vi) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the attack. The Additional Sessions Judge granted the respondent pre-arrest bail under section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 (JJSA), considering the offense as bailable for juveniles.----Issues:1. Interpretation of section 6(3) of the JJSA, specifically whether it applies to pre-arrest bail. The petitioner contended that the section is only applicable when a juvenile has been arrested or detained, arguing that pre-arrest bail should not be granted based on this provision.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, upholding the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge. The court reasoned that the JJSA is both remedial and beneficial legislation aimed at promoting the well-being of juvenile offenders and should be interpreted liberally to advance its objectives. The court found that denying the application of section 6(3) to pre-arrest bail would create an unnecessary distinction contrary to the act?s purpose, which aims to treat juvenile offenses as bailable to facilitate rehabilitation over punishment.---Citations/Precedents:Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 (JJSA) - Provides the legal framework for the case, specifically section 6(3) which was interpreted to include pre-arrest bail.In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) - U.S. Supreme Court decisions that influenced the development of juvenile justice systems emphasizing due process.United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - International treaty that influences domestic laws regarding children's rights and juvenile justice.General Comment No. 24 (2019) on children?s rights in the child justice system - Provides guidelines on the treatment of juveniles in legal systems.Khawar Kiyani v. The State and others (PLD 2022 SC 551) - Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling emphasizing the juvenile justice system's roots in national constitutional principles.Province of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Rafique and others (PLD 2018 SC 178) - Discusses the principle of lenity in interpreting penal statutes in favor of the accused.

Summary: Cancellation of Bail---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 154 & 342---Delay in FIR---Impact of delay in lodging the FIR and evidentiary value of confessional statement---FIR was lodged five hours after the incident; delay was held to be adequately explained due to post-mortem and other legal formalities. Reliance placed on Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State 2011 SCMR 872. Confessional statement made before police was inadmissible, but the recovery of the murder weapon on the accused’s pointation was considered corroborative evidence. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Conviction altered from premeditated murder (302(b)) to manslaughter (302(c)) due to absence of ill will, sudden provocation, and lack of premeditation---Deceased was stabbed during a sudden quarrel without any prior enmity, fulfilling the criteria of Exception 4 of section 300, PPC. Reliance placed on Azmat Ullah v. The State 2014 SCMR 1178. (c) Criminal Trial---Evidence---Single eye-witness testimony: ----Admissibility and reliability of related witness---Prosecution's case relied on the sole eye-witness (PW 4) and another corroborative eye-witness (PW 6), both related to the deceased. Court held that related witnesses' evidence cannot be discarded in the absence of proven enmity or ill will. Evidence was found reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. Reliance placed on Ijaz Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 99 and Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713. (d) Criminal Trial---Recovery and forensic evidence: ----Corroborative value of recovery and chemical analysis---Recovery of murder weapon (knife) on appellant's pointation was found to be stained with human blood. Court dismissed the possibility of foisting evidence due to lack of enmity between police and the accused. Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474. (e) Juvenile offender and mitigating circumstances: ----Reduction in sentence---Accused, aged 17-18 years at the time of the incident, was granted leniency due to his young age and the lack of premeditation. Sentence was reduced to 14 years under section 302(c), PPC, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. (f) Disposition: ----Appeal partly allowed---Conviction under section 302(b), PPC, was altered to 302(c), PPC, with a reduced sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment. Bail of appellant was canceled, and the appellant was directed to serve the remainder of the sentence. Cited Cases: Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State 2011 SCMR 872 Azmat Ullah v. The State 2014 SCMR 1178 Ijaz Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 99 Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713 Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474 Muhammad Waris v. The State 2008 SCMR 784 Raza and another v. The State 2020 SCMR 1185 Alamgir v. Gul Zaman and others 2019 SCMR 1415