Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii) & 34---Murder, attempt to murder and causing hurt with common intention---Joint attribution of role---Single fatal injury---Medical evidence---Where prosecution alleged joint firing by three accused but medical evidence showed only one firearm injury on body of deceased---No specific role or injury attributed to petitioner---Impossibility of determining which accused caused fatal injury---Benefit of doubt---Conviction under S.302(b), PPC unsustainable. (b) Criminal trial ----Ocular account---Specific attribution of injury---Requirement---Where general and omnibus role assigned to several accused without specific attribution of fatal or injury-causing act---Conviction cannot be sustained---Principle reaffirmed that prosecution must prove specific role where single injury is found---Failure fatal to prosecution case. (c) Recovery of weapon ----Non-recovery---Corroboration---Allegation of firearm use not supported by recovery of weapon of offence from petitioner---Lack of corroborative evidence---Prosecution version weakened. (d) Motive ----Vague and ambiguous motive---Old enmity---Not established---Alleged motive jointly attributed without particulars---Evidence showed petitioner not involved in earlier incident relied upon for motive---Absence of motive further weakened prosecution case. (e) Abscondence ----Evidentiary value---Abscondence by itself not sufficient to sustain conviction---Fear of false implication or police torture may explain conduct---Abscondence cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. (f) Benefit of doubt ----Criminal jurisprudence---Single doubt sufficient for acquittal---Where multiple circumstances created serious doubt regarding prosecution version---Accused entitled to acquittal as of right. Cited cases: • Farman Ali and others v. The State, PLD 1980 SC 201 • Liaqat Hussain and others v. Falak Sher and others, 2003 SCMR 611 • Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif and another, PLD 2008 SC 298 • Tariq Pervez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345 • Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2009 SCMR 230 Disposition: Criminal Petition No.607 of 2020 converted into appeal; appeal allowed; judgments of the Trial Court dated 08.10.2019 and High Court of Balochistan dated 31.03.2020 set aside; petitioner acquitted of all charges by benefit of doubt; petitioner ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 204---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Application for summoning the respondents/accused to face trial in case FIR---Scope---Complainant got lodged FIR in respect of offences under Ss.302, 324, 109, 148 & 149, P.P.C, and after the conclusion of the investigation, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were declared as not involved in the case and in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C their names were placed in Column No. 2---After the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the case, the petitioner moved an application seeking the summoning of said respondents to face the trial, but same was dismissed---Validity---Record showed that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were not only named in the FIR as accused but were also named as accused in the statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C---Though the Investigating Officers of the case had declared the said respondents not involved in the incident at all, however, the said opinions of the Investigating Officers of the case were not even relevant to be considered while adjudicating upon the application of the petitioner seeking summoning of the said respondents to face the trial of the case, as the question of the summoning was to be decided within the parameters of S.204, Cr.P.C---In this particular case, it was obvious that there was evidentiary material in the shape of not only the FIR but also the statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C to proceed with the trial of the said respondents---Moreover, the trial Court, while passing the order dated 25.08.2025, only referred to the result of the investigation as conducted by one of the Investigating Officers of the case, however, did not at all advert to the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case, wherein the said respondents were duly implicated---Trial Court can summon any accused whose name has been placed in column No.2 of the report under S.173, Cr.P.C, to face the trial of the case before recording of any evidence when there is sufficient material available against them and there is no bar whatsoever in that regard placed on the Trial Court---Moreover, the accused having been declared by the Investigating Officer not to be involved in the case should not be made a consideration while adjudicating upon the application under S.204, Cr.P.C for the simple reason that the opinion of the Investigating Officer of the case was not only irrelevant but also not admissible in evidence---In said circumstances, petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to summon the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to face the trial of the case. Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others 2002 SCMR 63; Waqar-ul-Haq alias Nithoo and another v. The State 1988 SCMR 1428; Sher Muhammad Umar and others v. The State PLD 2012 SC 179 and Falak Sher and another v. The State PLD 1967 SC 425 rel. Ch. Mussadiq Munir for Petitioner. Ch. Sarfraz Noor Meo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Zafar Iqbal Somro, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) & Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ----Ss. 302(b)/34, 324/34, 337-F(iii) PPC; Ss. 7(a), 7(c), 21-L ATA—Murder and terrorism charges—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt. For one deceased and one injured, sixteen persons were implicated; thirteen co-accused stood acquitted at trial. Against the two petitioners, core features of the prosecution case suffered from material doubts: contradictions between ocular account and medical evidence; lack of corroboration from recoveries/forensics; and withholding of CCTV evidence from the courthouse scene. Held, where multiple material infirmities exist, benefit of doubt must go to the accused; convictions under PPC and ATA cannot rest on conjectures or inflated rosters of accused. Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345); Muhammad Akram v. State (2009 SCMR 230) applied. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 129(g)—Withholding best evidence (CCTV)—Adverse inference. Occurrence was inside a courtroom; CCTV cameras were admittedly installed in the corridors and their presence inside the courtroom was disputed. Prosecution produced neither any report showing absence/non-function of cameras nor footage from corridor cameras to place the accused at the scene. Withholding such best evidence, without plausible explanation, warranted an adverse inference under Art. 129(g) QSO that the footage would not have supported the prosecution. Lal Khan v. State (2006 SCMR 1846); Riaz Ahmed v. State (2010 SCMR 846); Abdul Qadeer v. State (2024 SCMR 1146); Riasat Ali v. State (2024 SCMR 1224) followed. (c) Criminal evidence—Improvements vis-à-vis medical evidence—Credibility. Role initially assigned to Zafar Iqbal in the FIR (fire on “face”) was belied by the post-mortem; witnesses then introduced material “improvements” before the Trial Court to align with medical findings, and were confronted under s.161, Cr.P.C. Such dishonest improvements on material particulars erode credibility and cannot sustain conviction. Akhtar Ali v. State (2008 SCMR 6); Muhammad Rafique v. State (2010 SCMR 385) relied upon. (d) Forensic corroboration—Recovery. No weapon was recovered from Zafar Iqbal; the PFSA report regarding the pistol allegedly recovered at Azhar Iqbal’s pointing-out was negative. Prosecution thus lacked independent forensic corroboration of the ocular account. (e) Motive—Double-edged sword. Past enmity in prior murder cases, though asserted as motive, could not rescue a case otherwise rife with doubts and could also explain false implication via a wider net; convictions cannot be founded on motive alone where core proof fails. (f) Criminal Procedure—Victim’s locus / substitution of complainant. Crl.M.A. Nos. 2165 & 2166 of 2025 allowed: deceased complainant’s brother (also injured eye-witness) was permitted to contest and be heard through counsel. Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345) • Muhammad Akram v. State (2009 SCMR 230) • Akhtar Ali v. State (2008 SCMR 6) • Muhammad Rafique v. State (2010 SCMR 385) • Lal Khan v. State (2006 SCMR 1846) • Riaz Ahmed v. State (2010 SCMR 846) • Abdul Qadeer v. State (2024 SCMR 1146) • Riasat Ali v. State (2024 SCMR 1224) Disposition: Crl.M.A. Nos. 2165 & 2166 of 2025 allowed (applicant permitted to contest). Crl.P. No. 189/2020 converted into appeal and allowed—Trial Court (05.12.2015) and High Court (04.12.2019) judgments set aside; Azhar Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal acquitted of all charges on benefit of doubt; to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Crl.P. Nos. 92-L/2020 & 1810-L/2019 (by complainant for enhancement/against acquittals) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 452, 436, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy a building, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury below the right chest of deceased---During the course of investigation, the petitioner claimed a specific plea that he only tried to rescue the children and had not participated in the occurrence---Said version of the petitioner was also verified by the Investigating Officer in its findings incorporated in daily case diary, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not participate in the crime, therefore, the petitioner's case became one requiring further inquiry into his alleged guilt---Furthermore, considering the outcome of the investigations, the petitioner's case presented two conflicting versions; one stated by the complainant in the FIR and the other revealed by the Investigating Officer---Which version was correct was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Apart from the above, the crime empties which were secured from the crime scene were found shot from one crime weapon which did not belong to the petitioner---Principal perpetrator of the crime committed suicide at the crime scene---Nothing was recovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner---Investigation had been completed and the petitioner was no more required for the purpose of any further investigation---Petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025 and had been in custody since, without significant progress in the trial---In such state of affairs, the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petitioner was behind the bars and was no more required for further investigation---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2012 SCMR 1137; Saif Ullah v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1458; Najeeb Ullah v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 1241 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 1914 rel. (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 shall not influence the Trial Court. Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioner. Fakhar Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State with Naveed S.I.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b) read with Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)—Homicide—Absence of post-mortem / death certificate—Effect. Prosecution proved that the accused (petitioner) fired upon the victim causing three firearm injuries (right neck, right chest, right arm). However, no post-mortem was conducted, no Medical Officer deposed to the cause/date of death, and even the death certificate was withheld. Adverse inference under Art. 129(g) QSO was drawn against the prosecution for suppressing the best evidence. In such circumstances, conviction for murder under S. 302(b) PPC could not be sustained merely on presumptions or probabilities that the injuries resulted in death. Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600), Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan (PLD 2006 SC 538), and Muhammad Luqman v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 10) relied upon; principle that conjectures/probabilities cannot replace proof reiterated. Further reliance on Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) as to withholding of material evidence; and Gul Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 381) that external examination is not a substitute for post-mortem where cause of death is in issue. (b) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt—Standard of proof—Scope. Where a single material infirmity (non-production of mandatory medical evidence of death) creates reasonable doubt about the charge of homicide, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Prosecution’s burden to prove each charge beyond reasonable doubt does not shift to the accused. Ghulam Qadir (2008 SCMR 1221), Naveed Asghar (PLD 2021 SC 600) reaffirmed. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 324 & 337-L(i)—Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd—Causing hurt by firearm—Proof and sentencing. Ocular account of natural witnesses (PW-1 complainant and PW-2 paternal uncle) was confidence-inspiring; occurrence was promptly reported (FIR within ~2 hours; distance 7/8 km); medical evidence (PW-5) noted three firearm injuries; recovery of TT pistol at accused’s pointation with positive FSL corroboration (Exh. P/6-G). Even though motive remained unproved, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused firearm injuries on vital parts, attracting S. 324 PPC. In absence of declared nature of hurt by the Medical Officer, S. 337-L(i) PPC was also attracted. (d) Evidence—Ocular, medical and corroborative ----Prompt FIR—Natural presence—Weapon recovery—Forensic corroboration. House-occurrence; presence of inmate PW-1 and close-by PW-2 held natural; cross-examination did not shake their testimony. Prompt FIR added assurance. Recovery of weapon and positive FSL provided independent corroboration of the prosecution’s ocular account regarding causing injuries. Cited Cases: • Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) • Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 SCMR 846) • Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146) • Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224) • Gul Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 381) • Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) • Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) • Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan (PLD 2006 SC 538) • Muhammad Luqman v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 10) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed. Conviction and sentence under S. 302(b) PPC set aside. Appellant convicted under S. 324 PPC and sentenced to 10 years’ RI with fine Rs. 50,000 (SI 6 months in default). Appellant further convicted under S. 337-L(i) PPC and sentenced to 7 years’ RI with Daman Rs. 100,000 payable to legal heirs (non-payment to be dealt with per S. 337-Y(2) PPC). Compensation under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. as ordered by Trial Court and upheld by High Court maintained. Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497 ---- Post-arrest bail—Cross-firing between rival groups—Delay in recording injured witness statement—Scope of inquiry—Further probe. Occurrence arose out of cross-firing between two rival groups in which a minor bystander later died. FIR attributed a joint role of firing to both parties without specifying who caused the injury to Abdul Jabbar (injured). Statement of Abdul Jabbar under S.161, Cr.P.C., attributing the knee injury to the petitioner, was recorded after 1 month and 6 days, without any explanation or medical certification that he was unfit to give statement earlier. Such delayed implication rendered the matter doubtful and required further inquiry. The solitary non-vital injury (on the knee) also weakened the applicability of S.324, P.P.C., as it did not show an intent to commit murder. As for S.302, P.P.C., death of the minor occurred due to firing from the rival group, not the petitioner’s side. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Umer v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477) • Umer Hayat v. The State (2008 SCMR 1621) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149 ---- Cross-cases—Determination of aggressor—Bail—Principles. Where both parties engage in cross-firing and the question as to who was the aggressor or aggressed upon can only be determined after recording of evidence, such cases fall within the ambit of further inquiry warranting grant of bail. Petitioner was not alleged to have caused any fatal injury, was not involved in any other case, and had a specific, non-vital role. Cited Cases: • Noor Muhammad v. The State (2009 SCMR 324) • Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain (2011 SCMR 606) • Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool (2013 SCMR 1415) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of Lahore High Court dated 02.06.2025 set aside. Petitioner Asad Khalil granted post-arrest bail in FIR No.97/2025, P.S. Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 324, 392 & 34 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 382-B & 544-A ---- Robbery-cum-murder—Identification parade—Common intention—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment. Complainant and deceased, while securing goods on a parked truck, were attacked by two armed assailants who robbed them of Rs.100,000/- and fired upon them, resulting in the death of the deceased. Petitioners were arrested within days of the incident and identified in a properly conducted identification parade supervised by an Executive Magistrate. Complainant’s testimony was found credible, consistent, and corroborated by (i) recovery of weapon used in the crime on the pointation of petitioner Tahseen Ullah, (ii) positive forensic report linking the recovered pistol with empties found at the scene, and (iii) unbroken chain of custody of evidence. Non-mention of petitioners’ names in FIR was held immaterial, as the complainant truthfully stated they were unknown assailants, demonstrating bona fides. The ocular account was found confidence-inspiring, with no material contradictions extracted in cross-examination. Cited Cases: • Mst. Bevi v. Ghulam Shabbir and another (1980 SCMR 859) • Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State (2009 SCMR 1188) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 34 ---- Common intention—Constructive liability—Extent of participation. Both petitioners acted in preconcert; Tahseen Ullah snatched money and fired at the deceased, while Salman Khan positioned himself in front of the truck to prevent escape. Their coordinated conduct established a shared design and facilitated commission of robbery and murder. It was held that when several persons act in furtherance of common intention, all are equally liable under S.34, even if only one fires the fatal shot. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302(b) ---- Quantum of sentence—Extenuating circumstances—Principle of benefit of doubt applied to sentence. While evidence proved guilt of Tahseen Ullah beyond doubt, minor inconsistencies were treated as extenuating circumstances justifying conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment. Supreme Court reiterated that the principle of benefit of doubt also extends to the question of quantum of punishment, particularly where mitigating factors exist though guilt is established. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 382-B & 544-A ---- Concurrent sentences—Compensation to heirs of deceased. All sentences to run concurrently; benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., extended to both petitioners. Each petitioner directed to pay Rs.500,000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under S.544-A, Cr.P.C., with six months’ simple imprisonment in default. Disposition: Petition of Tahseen Ullah converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., maintained but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment; other convictions under Ss.324 & 392 maintained. Petition of Salman Khan dismissed; convictions and sentences maintained. Sentences of both convicts to run concurrently; benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., extended.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148, 149, 337-F(iii), 109—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)—Murder and hurt—Aggressor theory—Benefit of doubt. For one deceased and one injured, twelve persons were implicated. The incident occurred in front of the co-accused’s house; several members of the accused party also sustained firearm injuries, one medically verified and others admitted by the investigating officer. Prosecution suppressed this material fact, undermining its credibility. The admitted presence of injuries on accused persons and the location of occurrence near their house made it probable that the complainant party was the aggressor. Suppression of such evidence rendered the prosecution witnesses untrustworthy. Muhammad Yaqoob v. Manzoor Hussain (2008 SCMR 1549), Ghulam Nabi v. Ikram alias Kama (2020 SCMR 477), Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain (1994 SCMR 1928), Nasrullah v. State (1985 SCMR 1715) and Muhammad Ramzan v. State (2021 SCMR 655) relied upon. (b) Recovery and forensic corroboration—Empties deposited after arrest—Evidentiary value. Recovery of 12-bore gun and PFSA report were disbelieved where empties were recovered on 23-08-2012 but deposited in the forensic laboratory on 28-08-2012, after the appellant’s arrest. Such sequence made the forensic link doubtful. Muhammad Amin v. State (2019 SCMR 2057) and Asad Rehmat v. State (2019 SCMR 1156) followed. (c) Motive—Joint and unproved. Prosecution alleged a quarrel and exchange of abuses two days earlier as common motive against all accused. Ten co-accused had already been acquitted and no specific motive was attributed to the appellant. High Court had also disbelieved motive. Absence of motive further weakened prosecution case. (d) Defence plea—Standard of proof. Where the accused demonstrates reasonable possibility of an alternate version, even by cross-examination or admitted circumstances, benefit of doubt must follow. Defence is not required to prove its plea beyond reasonable doubt; it suffices to create reasonable doubt in prosecution story. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. State (PLD 2009 SC 814), Rashid Ahmad v. State (2001 SCMR 41), and Muhammad Nazir v. Tariq (1992 SCMR 1983) referred. (e) Prosecution witnesses—Unreliability due to suppression of material facts. Prosecution’s failure to disclose injuries on accused side, coupled with inconsistencies in recoveries and motive, demonstrated deliberate suppression, warranting rejection of their testimony. (f) Benefit of doubt—Principle reaffirmed. If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted; here, numerous infirmities rendered the case doubtful. Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. State (2009 SCMR 230) applied. Disposition: Crl. A. No. 57 of 2021 allowed—Trial Court and High Court judgments dated 27-03-2017 and 19-11-2018 set aside—Iftikhar Ahmed alias Papu acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Crl. A. No. 58 of 2021 (for enhancement/against acquittal) dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail Before Arrest --- Pre-Arrest Bail --- Maintainability --- Instant petition has been filed by Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioners) against impugned order dated 23.04.2025, in Crl. Misc. No.14086-B of 2025, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore with prayer to set-aside said order and grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners in case FIR No.160/2025, dated 28.01.2025, offences under Sections 324/337A(iii)/337A(ii)/337F(ii)/148/149 PPC, registered at police station Zafarwal, District Narowal --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- It is evident from perusal of order dated 23.06.2025, of this Court that instant petition has already been partially dismissed to extent of Muhammad Sajid (Muhammad Sajid Iqbal) petitioner No.1, on account of his arrest --- Insofar as case of Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively), is concerned, we have noted that as per contents of FIR, Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), was assigned role of inflicting wooden 'bala' on forehead of Younas PW, whereas Ali Raza petitioner No.3, has been assigned role of inflicting hatchet blow on back side of head of Sufiyan PW --- Injuries attributed to both petitioners were declared by concerned Medical Officer to be punishable under section 337A (ii) PPC --- During investigation, it was concluded by Investigating Officer that Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), was merely present at spot and he did not cause any injury on any member of complainant party --- Said findings of Investigating Officer have made prosecution case as one of further inquiry entitling Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), to relief of pre-arrest bail as observed in judgments reported as 'Ehsan Ullah v. The State" (2012 SCMR 70) and 'Muhammad Ishaq v. The State and others' (2012 SCMR 1137) --- So far as Ali Raza (petitioner No.3), is concerned, we have noted that in medico legal report of Sufiyan PW, Medical Officer has mentioned injury on his head as skin deep --- Section 337A(ii) PPC, is attracted when bone under injury is exposed but it is evident from perusal of medico legal report of Sufiyan PW that no such finding regarding exposing bone of head of Sufiyan PW was mentioned in report rather it was categorically mentioned that injury on head of Sufiyan PW was skin deep, hence offence under section 337A(i) PPC, which is bailable offence, is attracted instead of section 337A(ii) PPC, to extent of abovementioned injury entitling Ali Raza (petitioner No.3), to grant of pre-arrest bail --- Reference in this context may be made to judgment reported as "Muhammad Qasim and another v. The State and others" (PLD 2014 Lahore 555) --- We have also noted that sixteen (16) named and 4/5 unknown accused persons total 20/21 accused persons have been implicated in this case by complainant, therefore, possibility of malafide involvement of petitioners in this case by complainant while using wider-net cannot be ruled out at this stage --- In light of above discussion, this petition is converted into appeal and same is partly allowed --- Consequently, impugned order is set-aside to extent of Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively) --- Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively), vide order dated 23.06.2025, is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing of fresh bail bonds in sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (On appeal against the order dated 28.04.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Crl. Misc. (BA) No. 193-A of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---Vicarious liability, principle of---Delay in conclusion of trial---Accused was arrested in the FIR in which five nominated co-accused persons were granted bail by High Court---It was still to be determined at the trial as to whether accused had shared common intention with nominated co-accused in committing murder of deceased and causing firearm injuries to two others and he was vicariously liable for the occurrence---Challan had already been submitted but for the last 9 months the prosecution had not examined any witness at the trial---Accused was in judicial custody and was no more required for any further investigation or probe---Allegations levelled in FIR by complainant against accused were to be proved at trial and bail could not be withheld as mere punishment---Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Bail was allowed. Asif Ali Talpur, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Muhammad Asif, DSP and Arshad, Inspector for the State. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 28th August, 2025.