Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 516-A & 561-A---Superdari of vehicle---Inherent power of High Court---Scope---Report was filed by the police that the vehicle in question was a case property in a criminal case---Petitioner/bank alleged that vehicle was leased out in favour of customer, who failed to pay the installments---Trial Court dismissed the application of petitioner for superdari, which orders were upheld by the appellate Court---Validity---Report submitted by City Police Officer revealed that the vehicle in question pertained to case FIR No. 569 of 2020 registered under Ss.457, 380 & 511, P.P.C---Complainant registered the FIR against four unknown accused persons for attempting to commit theft of tower batteries---Later, the complainant nominated “S” as an accused in the FIR---Said fact suggested that “S”, to whom a finance facility was extended, was named in the said FIR---Present petitioner was the sole claimant of the vehicle to date, who had the original documents/excise file---Report submitted by the City Police Officer revealed that UBL concerned branch issued a letter stating that on 24.01.2024 a certificate was issued by UBL Bank to DPO, verifying that the vehicle in question was leased to the customer, “S”, under the Higher Purchase Agreement (HPA)/Finance Agreement with United Bank Limited---Bank verified that United Bank Limited owned the vehicle---Bank also verified that the original file/excise file and a copy of the registration book were available in the bank record---Original registration book was handed over to the customer---As the vehicle in question, the bank financed the vehicle to the customer for 60th Months” installment plan, which started from April 2017 and matured on March 2022; customer deposited only 41 installments till the month of August 2020, thereafter defaulted in payment of monthly lease rental and at present, an amount of Rs.655,594.90/- was still outstanding against the said vehicle/customer and thereafter it was seized in case FIR No. 569/2020---In the circumstances, the retention of the car in question in police possessions for an indefinite period would mean a completely damaged and deteriorated condition of the vehicle---Neither of the Courts below was justified in refusing the superdari of car in question to the petitioner---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders, in circumstances. Shah Nawaz Qureshi for Petitioner. Muhammad Akhlaq, D.P.G with Karamat, ASI for Respondents.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas for offences under Sections 452 PPC, and was acquitted for charges under Sections 376 and 511 PPC. The conviction led to a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with a default sentence of four months of simple imprisonment. The appellant was accused of forcibly entering the complainant's house and attempting to commit rape, but during the trial, the evidence for Sections 376 and 511 PPC was found insufficient, leading to his acquittal on these charges. However, he was convicted for the offence under Section 452 PPC. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 452 PPC. 2- Whether the compromise reached between the parties can lead to the appellant's acquittal despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compromise Between Parties: The complainant and the appellant stated that they had settled their differences through community intervention and no longer wished to pursue the case against each other. State's Position: The Additional Prosecutor General acknowledged the complainant's unwillingness to continue prosecuting the appellant but highlighted that the offence under Section 452 PPC is non-compoundable. ---Court's Reasoning: The court recognized the prolonged agony faced by the appellant due to the trial and appeal process. Noting the superior courts' guidance that, in some situations, parties may be allowed to live peacefully even in non-compoundable offences, the court deemed it appropriate to consider the compromise and settle the matter in the interest of justice. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18-08-2017 to the extent of the appellant's conviction under Section 452 PPC. The appellant was acquitted of the charge, and his bail bond was canceled, and surety discharged. -----Citations/Precedents: Ashiq Solangi and another vs. The State (PLD 2008 Karachi 420) Aamir and 2 others vs. The State and another (2011 MLD 1468 [Lahore]) Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others vs. The State (2003 SCMR 663) Ali Raza and another vs. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 651) Tasawar Hussain vs. The State and another (2021 YLR Note 124 [Islamabad]) Muhammad Jamil and others vs. The State and another (2013 P Cr. L J 1458 [Lahore])

Summary: Bail granted ---- The petitioner, sought pre-arrest bail after the Lahore High Court, Lahore, declined his request. An FIR (No. 309/2023) was lodged against him on January 15, 2023, at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore, under sections 448, 440, 511, 427, 148, 149, PPC. The FIR alleged that on the said date, the petitioner and co-accused, armed with firearms, forcibly entered the housing society of the complainant, fired indiscriminately, injuring a passerby, and damaging property including the gate and building of the office. ----Issues: Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. Whether the presence of family conflicts and cross-versions of the incident warranted the granting of pre-arrest bail. Whether the lack of police investigation into the alleged injury of a passerby raised further questions about the petitioner’s guilt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: False Implication and Family Conflicts: The court recognized the ongoing family conflicts over the ownership and management of the Formanites Housing Society, founded by the petitioner’s late father. Given the potential for malafide intentions and false implications arising from these disputes, the court found merit in the petitioner’s claim of being falsely implicated. Cross-Versions and Further Inquiry: The court noted that in cases of cross-versions arising from the same incident, bail is typically granted to allow further inquiry. The petitioner alleged that the complainant party was the aggressor, which required a detailed investigation to ascertain the truth. Precedents cited included Fazal Muhammad (1976 SCMR 391), Shafiq-ur-Rehman (1972 SCMR 682), and Khalid Mahmood (2013 SCMR 1415). Lack of Investigation into Injury: The FIR mentioned an injury to passerby Zeeshan Haider due to the firing, but the police conducted no investigation into this injury. This omission raised further doubts about the prosecution’s case, leading the court to classify the matter as one requiring further inquiry. ----Outcome: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The impugned order of the Lahore High Court dated November 13, 2023, was set aside. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail upon furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 100,000 and a personal recognizance bond of the same amount. The court emphasized that these observations were tentative and that the trial court was free to adjudicate the case independently based on its merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Fazal Muhammad (1976 SCMR 391) Shafiq-ur-Rehman (1972 SCMR 682) Khalid Mahmood (2013 SCMR 1415) ----Notes: The case highlights the importance of a thorough investigation, especially when there are cross-versions and potential false implications due to family disputes. The decision underscores the principle that bail should be granted in cases requiring further inquiry.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 452--- House trespass by armed accused---Compromise between parties---Effect---Appellant was convicted under S.452, P.P.C. for forcibly entering the complainant's house with co-accused and attempting to commit rape---Trial Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Ss.376 & 511, P.P.C. but convicted him under S.452, P.P.C.---Complainant/victim appeared before Appellate Court stating she had resolved the matter amicably and no longer wished to prosecute the accused---Offence under S.452, P.P.C. being non-compoundable---Held, while offence is statutorily non-compoundable, superior courts have recognized that courts may accept compromise in such cases to promote harmony and avoid protracted litigation when complainant expresses no intent to continue prosecution---Appellant had already faced trial and appeal proceedings for eight years---In view of compromise and settled precedents, conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.----Cited Cases: • Ashiq Solangi and another v. The State PLD 2008 Kar. 420• Aamir and 2 others v. The State and another 2011 MLD 1468• Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others v. The State 2003 SCMR 663• Ali Raza and another v. The State and another PLD 2013 Lah. 651• Tasawar Hussain v. The State and another 2021 YLR Note 124 [Islamabad]• Muhammad Akram v. The State 1995 MLD 1826• Mst. Mussarat Elahi alias Bibi v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1193• Ghulam Ali v. The State 1997 SCMR 1411• Muhammad Jamil and others v. The State and another 2013 PCr.LJ 1458

Summary: PLJ 2022 CrC 1151 [Lahore High Court Lahore] Present Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi J MUHAMMAD ASHRAF WARRAICH 10 others - - Petitioners versus STATE and another - - Respondents Crl Misc No 76536B of 2021 decided on 1122022 Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 498 - - Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss 447 511 440 147 149 - - Pre - arrest bail grant of - - Allegation of - - Petitioner and co - accused armed with clubs attempted to destroy standing crops and also to take possession of land - - Police official in attendance through Prosecutor informs that Section 440 of Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stands deleted in this case and that petitioners having no previous criminal record have joined investigation - - The offences punishable under Section 447 read with Sections 511 and 147 of Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are bailable in nature - - Similar would be situation with regard to Section 149 of Code ibid - - Sending petitioners in view of above mentioned circumstances behind bars is neither likely to serve any useful purpose nor seems justified - - Bail confirmed [P 1152] A Mr Javed Iqbal Malik Advocate with Petitioners Mr Irfan Zia Deputy Prosecutor General for StateJudgement Result:Bail confirmed

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Sections 497 & 498—Pre-arrest bail—Principles and grounds—Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR alleging theft, criminal intimidation, and other offenses. The court held that pre-arrest bail serves as a check on police powers and protects individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly when incriminating material is insufficient or circumstances indicate mala fide intent by the complainant or the police. (b) Criminal law—Delays in FIR registration ----Significance of delay—The court observed that an unexplained delay of over a month in lodging the FIR raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations, making the case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C. (c) Criminal law—Evidence and investigation ----Lack of corroborative material—The court noted that no crime empties or specific details regarding the alleged weapons were mentioned in the FIR, and the petitioner, a 75-year-old individual, was not tagged with any specific incriminating role. The absence of material evidence undermined the credibility of the allegations. (d) Precedents on pre-arrest bail ----Relief granted in the absence of sufficient material—Relying on Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 708), the court reiterated that pre-arrest bail can be granted if there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused’s involvement in the alleged offense, even without independent proof of mala fide intent by the complainant or police. (e) Criminal law—Prohibitory clause ----Nature of offenses and right to bail—The court emphasized that the alleged offenses, including Sections 379 and 506(ii) PPC, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., entitling the petitioner to bail as a matter of right. Disposition: The petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed, and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted was confirmed. The petitioner was directed to furnish fresh bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Cited Case: • Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 708).

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging an order dated 15.04.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, in a case involving multiple charges under Sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 447, 511, 427, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was granted post-arrest bail but was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,35,000 as 'arsh' (compensation for injury) and furnish bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000. The petitioner contended that imposing the condition of depositing the 'arsh' for the release on bail was contrary to the law. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the imposition of a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit the 'arsh' amount for bail is legally valid. ----- 2) Can a criminal court impose such conditions while granting bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or other applicable laws? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Imposition of Condition for Bail: The Court held that under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it is permissible for a criminal court to impose conditions for granting bail. Subsection 4-A of Section 401 allows a criminal court to impose conditions related to the liberty of a person or any liability upon them. While Chapter XXXIX of the Cr.P.C., which deals with bail, does not explicitly mention such conditions, Section 401 grants broad powers for conditional release in cases where it serves the interests of justice. ----- Precedents Supporting Conditional Bail: The Court referred to multiple precedents where conditions for bail were upheld. The Court emphasized that such conditions are lawful as long as they are reasonable and not illegal. In cases like Shahid Sultan Durrani v. The State (2021 SCMR 827), conditional bail was granted based on the accused’s commitment to pay the disputed amount. The Court observed that conditional bail has been recognized and is in practice under various laws, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Section 21-D) and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (Section 51). ----- Outcome: The Court concluded that the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, requiring the petitioner to deposit the 'arsh' amount for bail, was lawful and in line with established legal principles. Since the petitioner had already accepted the condition by depositing the amount and securing release on bail, his challenge to the condition was deemed untenable. The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit. ----- Citations/Precedents: Haji Maa Din and another v. The State (1998 SCMR 1528) Ali Akhtar v. The State and another (2013 P Cr. L J 487) Attaullah v. Abdur Razaq and another (PLD 2002 SC 534) The State v. Muhammad Umar alias Chotoo (2003 P Cr. L J 216) Shahid Sultan Durrani v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 827) Faizan Rehmat v. The State (2021 P. Cr. L J 235) Maryam Nawaz Sharif v. Chairman NAB (PLD 2020 LHR 205)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376, 365 & 511---Rape, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly andwrongfully confine person, attempt to commit offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Enmity with accused---Non-production of victim---Contradictorystatements---Un-natural conduct of witnesses---Delay in producing clothes of victimto police---Effect---Prosecution case against accused was that he abducted thedaughter of complainant when she reached near his house; took her to his house;tore her clothes with intention to commit rape but the mother of victim while passingthrough the street saw the victim being abducted; which attracted two persons andthe accused fled away from the spot---Admittedly, complainant party had enmitywith the accused---No medico legal examination of the victim was produced whichcould have shown marks of dragging or violence on her body---Victim, although deafand dumb, was not produced in the witness box---Statements of eye-witnesses werecontradictory---Accused, despite being empty handed, was not apprehended by thecomplainant party even though it consisted of three adult members---Torn 'qameez'of the victim was produced before the police after seventeen days of the occurrence---Admittedly, accused and his brother lived in the house where the occurrence tookplace and it was not probable that the accused would attempt to commit rape wherehis family and family of his brother was living---Prosecution had failed to prove itscase against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction, wasallowed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal trial-------Witness---Related witness---Scope---Statement of related eye-witness can berelied upon to decide a case but such statement is required to be corroborated byindependent evidence and it should be confidence inspiring and trustworthy.(c) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in theprosecution case is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Summary: Background:Najam-ul-Hassan alias Irshad (Petitioner/Accused) filed a petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No.02/2020, registered under Sections 364-A, 377, and 511 PPC at Police Station Sikandarabad, District Nagar. The allegations against the petitioner were that he committed sodomy with Qamar Abbas, a 14-year-old boy, on 10-01-2020. The complaint was lodged by the victim's brother, Arfan Hussain, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner's initial bail request was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagar on 03-03-2020.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the absence of a Medico Legal Report and the lack of recovery of a pistol from the petitioner warrant further inquiry into the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR, with the complainant himself witnessing the occurrence. The victim's statement corroborated the FIR.The court noted that the offense under Section 377 PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, which generally precludes bail.The court found that the Medico Legal Report, which noted abrasive wounds on the victim, provided prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense.The court rejected the petitioner's argument of false implication due to prior civil litigation between the families, finding no evidence of enmity that could lead to such a false accusation.The court emphasized the moral turpitude of the offense and deemed the petitioner undeserving of bail under discretionary powers.---Citations/Precedents:The decision relied on principles regarding the prohibitory clause under Section 497 Cr.P.C and the discretionary powers of the court in granting bail for offenses of moral turpitude. Specific case laws or precedents were not mentioned in the judgment.

Summary: The incident involved the appellant allegedly assaulting a nine-year-old girl, Hijab Fatima, on her way home from school. The judgment included a five-year prison sentence, a fine of Rs.25,000, and additional penalties.During the trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses, including the complainant Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah, eyewitnesses Ahmad Ali and Altaf Hussain, and the investigating officer Muhammad Shafi SI. The defense argued that there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR and that the eyewitnesses failed to justify their presence. They also claimed contradictions in the witnesses' statements.The court, however, found the prosecution's case convincing, highlighting that the delay in reporting the crime was understandable given its sensitive nature. The judgment emphasized the consistency in the statements of the victim and the eyewitnesses, refuting the defense's arguments. The court noted that the victim was not medically examined due to the immediate arrival of witnesses preventing the rape. The appellant's defense, claiming false implication, was deemed unsubstantiated as no evidence was presented.The appeal focused on the omission of administering an oath to the child witness, Hijab Fatima. The court clarified that under the Oaths Act, the absence of an oath does not invalidate the proceedings or make the testimony inadmissible. The court further discussed the competency of a child witness under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and emphasized that the credibility of a witness and their competency are distinct.Ultimately, the court set aside the conviction under Section 376/511 P.P.C but convicted the appellant under Section 354 P.P.C for attempted assault. Atif Shahzad received a two-year prison sentence, a Rs.50,000 fine, and a Rs.100,000 compensation order to be paid to the victim. Failure to pay the fine or compensation would result in additional imprisonment. The judgment concluded by mentioning the availability of the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C to the appellant.