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

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

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

Summary: -----Complainant of FIR is aggrieved that the accused has not been sent on remand and he has been discharged. Impugns order directly through this writ. FIR No. 1043-2023 dated 16.08.2023 U/s 457/380 PPC P.S. Industrial Area I-9, Islamabad -----Background: The petitioner challenged the order issued by the Judicial Magistrate that discharged the accused under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.PC). The accused was implicated through a supplementary statement in an FIR registered under Sections 392, 380, and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) regarding theft and robbery at a shop owned by the complainant. The complainant alleged that witnesses corroborated his account. However, the Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused, citing lack of evidence, including a report by the Superintendent of Police (SP) stating the accused was in Sialkot at the time of the alleged offense. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Judicial Magistrate could exercise authority under Section 63 of Cr.PC to discharge the accused without waiting for the completion of investigation and submission of a police report under Section 169 of Cr.PC. -----2- Whether the discharge order issued by the Magistrate was arbitrary or a valid exercise of administrative discretion. -----3- Whether the accused’s fundamental rights to liberty and due process were adequately upheld. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision to discharge the accused, ruling that Section 63 of Cr.PC empowers the Magistrate to discharge an accused when there is insufficient material to justify further detention, even at the remand stage. The Court clarified that Section 63 of Cr.PC does not mandate reliance on a police report under Section 169 of Cr.PC for discharging an accused. The discharge does not preclude further investigation by the police or re-arrest of the accused if incriminating evidence emerges subsequently. The Court emphasized that the role of the Magistrate is to ensure that the liberty of an accused is not curtailed unjustly and that fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution are safeguarded. The petition was dismissed as the impugned discharge order was deemed neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. -----Citations/Precedents: Bahadur vs. The State (PLD 1985 SC 62): Explained the administrative nature of discharge under Section 63 of Cr.PC. Ashiq Hussain v. Sessions Judge, Lodhran (PLD 2001 Lahore 271): Detailed the scope of discharge under Section 63 of Cr.PC. Hidayatullah vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1920): Emphasized just and fair exercise of Magistrate’s discretion. Muzaffar Ahmad vs. The State (2021 PCr.LJ 1393 Lahore): Clarified the independence of Section 63 from Section 169 of Cr.PC. Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. The State (2018 PLD SC 595): Discussed arrest discretion and necessity of incriminating evidence. Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA vs. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566): Stressed that courts cannot add requirements not present in the statutory text. Tahir Naqsh vs. The State (PLD 2022 SC 385): Reiterated strict construction of penal statutes in favor of the accused. Muhammad Khan Kurd vs. Arbab Muhammad Hashim (PLD 2020 Balochistan 38): Distinguished discharge from acquittal. Maqbool Ahmed v. Station House Officer, Police Station Changa Manga (1999 PCr.LJ 1198): Affirmed justice during investigation. Iftikhar Ahmed vs. The State (PLD 2020 Lahore 931): Relied upon by petitioner but distinguished by the Court. Dr. Zahid Javed vs. Dr. Tahir Riaz Chaudhry (PLD 2016 SC 637): Applied the doctrine of casus omissus. Collector of Sales Tax vs. Messrs Super Asia Mohammad Din and Sons (2017 PTD 1756): Prohibited courts from reading extra requirements into statutes.

Summary: Background:Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar were convicted and sentenced under Sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, by a Judicial Magistrate. Their convictions and sentences were upheld by appellate and revisional courts. The appellants filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the revisional court, which was not entertained by the Supreme Court due to non-compliance with the surrender requirement.-----Issues:Whether the appellants' petition for leave to appeal is maintainable without surrendering to the order of imprisonment.Whether the Office of the Supreme Court correctly refused to entertain the appellants' petition based on non-compliance with the surrender requirement.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of its Office to refuse to entertain the appellants' petition for leave to appeal. The Court cited Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which stipulates that a convict challenging his conviction and sentence of imprisonment must first surrender to undergo the term of the sentence awarded to render his petition maintainable. The Court emphasized the importance of surrendering to an order of imprisonment as a condition precedent for entertaining a petition for leave to appeal in criminal cases involving imprisonment. Since the appellants failed to fulfill this requirement, their petition was dismissed as not entertainable.-----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Adnan alias Dana v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 1570)V. Haji Nasim-ur-Rehman (PLD 2005 SC 270)Atif All v. Abdul BasitZahid v. The state (PLD 1991 SC 379)The State through National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad (2022 SCMR 2055)

Summary: Acquittal ---- Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 182, 211, 409, 380 & 454---False information with intent to cause public servant touse his lawful power to the injury of another person, false charge of offence made with intentto injure, criminal breach of trust by public servant, theft in dwelling house, lurking housetrespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment---Appreciation of evidence---Absence of mens rea---Effect---Complainant/police constable gotlodged FIR that his official Kalashnikov was stolen from his house---Prosecution case wasthat the complainant had failed to deposit the Kalashnikov with the department; that he hadembezzled the official Kalashnikov; that he got lodged a false FIR and that duringinvestigation no signs of theft were observed---Prosecution case was based uponpresumptions and assumptions---Complainant himself had reported to police station withregard to missing of official Kalashnikov from his house, thus, he discharged his liability andapparently no mens rea existed on this part---Petition was accepted, judgments passed byMagistrate and Sessions Judge were set aside and the complainant, was acquitted of thecharge.

Summary: Background:Asif, the petitioner, sought post-arrest bail after failing to obtain it from lower courts. He was charged under Sections 511, 457, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for an incident that occurred on 20-4-2019. The complainant alleged that a masked person with a knife was seen in his veranda at 3:00 AM. The masked person fled upon being seen, and later, witnesses identified him as Asif. The FIR was lodged three days later, on 23-4-2019.--Issues:Whether the three-day delay in lodging the FIR impacts the credibility of the case.Whether the lack of eye witnesses and recovery of stolen property affect the case against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C given the nature of the offences.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted bail to the petitioner, reasoning that:The three-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, raising questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case.No independent witnesses were cited, and no stolen property was recovered from the petitioner.The offences under Sections 380, 457, and 511 PPC do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.The case appeared to be one of further inquiry, meriting bail.----Citations/Precedents:Section 497 Cr.P.C (Code of Criminal Procedure)Sections 511, 457, and 380 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code)----Judgment:The petition for bail is allowed.The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Vacations/Deputy Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit.Observations made in this order are tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

Summary: Acquittal granted--- The appellants were involved in a case that initially included charges under Sections 496-A, 380, 324, and 34 PPC. Subsequently, additional offenses under sections 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 365-B, and 376 PPC were added. The trial court acquitted co-accused while convicting and sentencing appellants Rashid Hussain and Shahid Hussain for certain offenses. The convictions included Section 324/34 PPC with a five-year RI term and fines, along with other penalties for various charges. Notably, they were acquitted of charges under Section 376 and 365-B PPC. The prosecution's narrative, based on the FIR, outlined an incident involving the assault and abduction of the complainant's family members, with subsequent allegations of theft and attempts of Zina (illicit relations). The court noted inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and observed that the learned trial court had disbelieved the prosecution's version regarding certain serious charges. The court, citing legal principles, deemed the statement inadmissible due to the lack of an opportunity for cross-examination, which affected the overall credibility of the case. Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of affording the accused a fair opportunity for cross-examination, as per constitutional principles. It highlighted that the prosecution had failed to establish admissible evidence, and the acquittal of major charges by the trial court indicated a lack of a credible case. Additionally, it dismissed Crl. Revision finding it meritless.

Summary: ----Background:Muhammad Saleem, the appellant, faced trial for multiple offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). These included charges of murder (Section 302 PPC), causing hurt (Section 324 PPC), robbery (Section 380 PPC), and receiving stolen prope