Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 249-A, 190 & 561-A — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 — Quashment of FIR — Allegation of criminal trespass into State land — Political victimization — FIR registered under Ss. 447, 448/34, P.P.C. after delay of five years from initial land retrieval process — Allegations vague, unsupported, and without specific attribution of intent required under S. 441, P.P.C. — Petitioner, a sitting MNA and opposition alliance leader, was not named in any prior official correspondence and no specific role assigned in FIR — Held, no prima facie material existed to justify continuation of proceedings — FIR registered and proceedings initiated without lawful authority and were quashed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 441, 447 & 448 — Elements of criminal trespass — Essential requirement of dominant intent to commit offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy person in possession — Mere unauthorized entry without requisite mens rea does not attract S. 441 — Held, residential plot did not qualify as “house” under S. 442, hence offence under S. 448 not attracted — FIR contained no assertion of annoyance or intimidation of any specific occupant — Alleged act, if any, amounted at most to civil trespass — Criminal process cannot be used to settle civil disputes or for political motives. Malik Muhammad Zameer v. Shamim Akhtar 2006 PCr.LJ 539; Abdul Razzaq v. SHO 2008 PCr.LJ 812; Kazi Taj Muhammad v. The State PLD 1962 Karachi 330; Olga Tellis case AIR 1986 SC 180 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) — Judicial review of administrative action — Police officers performing functions under provincial law are amenable to writ jurisdiction — Registration of FIR and investigation are subject to scrutiny where found to be without lawful authority — High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of law and miscarriage of justice — Held, in absence of intent and evidence, registration of FIR was abuse of process — Judicial Magistrate's refusal to quash proceedings under S. 249-A Cr.P.C. was unjustified and liable to be set aside. FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah PLD 2023 SC 265; State v. Ashiq Ali Bhutto 1993 SCMR 523; Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed 2000 SCMR 122 ref. (d) Criminal law — Arrest — Principles for arresting nominated accused — Police not to arrest a person solely based on nomination in FIR — Investigating officer must collect sufficient material to justify arrest — Held, in absence of such material, arrest or continuation of proceedings is unwarranted — FIR, lodged without credible basis or proof of criminal intent, was rightly quashed to avoid futile trial and wastage of court resources. Sughra Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 ref. Disposition: Petition allowed. FIR No. 43/2024 registered under Ss. 447, 448/34, P.P.C. and all proceedings arising therefrom to the extent of the petitioner declared unlawful and quashed. Order of Judicial Magistrate dated 10-05-2024 set aside.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(5), S. 498 Pre-arrest bail—Scope and guiding principles—Extraordinary relief. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted in exceptional cases to prevent undue harassment, humiliation, or victimization due to mala fide motives. The conditions for granting such bail include: (i) the presence of ulterior motives behind the arrest, (ii) malice on the part of the police or complainant, and (iii) the existence of reasonable grounds that warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The scope of pre-arrest bail has been expanded to cases where the accused can show that their case falls under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., necessitating further investigation. The trial court correctly applied these principles while granting bail to the accused-respondents. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2009 SC 427 • PLD 1983 SC 82 • 2012 PCr.LJ 430 • 1997 MLD 2926 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(5), S. 498 Cancellation of bail—Higher threshold for revocation—Burden on complainant. Once bail is granted by a competent court, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation. Bail can only be revoked if there is misuse of concession, interference with investigation, or a likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. The mere assertion that the trial court misapplied legal principles is insufficient to justify revocation. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s order, and thus, the revision petition was dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Zafar Mehmood v. Muzaffar (2014 PCr.LJ 1512) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 161 Tentative assessment of evidence at bail stage—No deeper appreciation. At the stage of bail, courts only conduct a tentative assessment of evidence, including the FIR, statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and other relevant material. A deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The petitioner’s reliance on CCTV footage and conflicting witness statements did not provide conclusive proof of guilt, thereby warranting further inquiry into the matter. ----Cited Cases: • Murad Khan’s Case (PLD 1983 SC 82) (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----SS. 147, 148, 149, 379, 382, 427, 447, 506, 509, 511 Allegations of criminal trespass, theft, and mischief—Possibility of false implication—Further inquiry required. The accused-respondents were alleged to have trespassed on disputed land, committed theft, and used criminal force. However, due to the existence of civil litigation regarding land ownership and contradictory witness statements, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Several crucial questions—such as how the alleged theft of construction materials was executed—remained unanswered, making the case fit for further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court upheld the bail order accordingly. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. The pre-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondents was upheld due to lack of strong reasons for cancellation.