Legal advice on Bail in Pakistan

Introduction 

The fundamental premise of bail entails releasing an individual from the clutches of law enforcement authorities, placing them under the supervision of sureties who are committed to ensure the individual’s availability whenever necessitated (2007 YLR 1582). The concept of bail, though not explicitly defined within the Code of Criminal Procedure, essentially serves as a legal avenue for securing the temporary freedom of an individual under arrest. According to Wharton’s Law Lexicon, bail signifies the act of liberating a detained or incarcerated individual by obtaining security for their due appearance when called upon.

Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary elaborates that bail is procured when an individual, held for misconduct or similar grounds, thereby deprived of liberty, is offered surety to those vested with the authority to grant bail. Common law mandates that an accused individual is deemed bailed when released from the custody of court officials and entrusted to sureties, who are obligated to ensure the accused’s presence at a designated time and place to respond to the charges. Failure on part of the sureties to fulfil this obligation renders them liable to forfeit the specified sum stipulated at the time of granting bail. 

Please note we have created a separate page for Bail Under Section 9 of the Control Of Narcotics Act (CNS) Act 1997 (As amended in 2022 & 2023)

Bail Under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNS 1997) (Legal Position in 2023)

Core Concept of Bail
The underlying principle of bail revolves around the release of an individual from the grip of law enforcement agencies, transitioning them into the care of sureties who are obliged to present the individual whenever necessitated (2007 YLR 1582). The Code of Criminal Procedure lacks an explicit definition of bail; however, it symbolises a method of officially or legally liberating a person under arrest and in custody. According to Wharton’s Law Lexicon, bail denotes the act of “releasing a detained or imprisoned individual and obtaining security for their reappearance.”

Judicial Interpretations of Bail
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary articulates that bail is secured when an individual, held for malfeasance or similar reasons, is offered surety to those holding the authority to bail him. Within common law, an accused individual is deemed bailed upon release from the custody of court officials, being entrusted to sureties who are obligated to ensure the individual’s presence at a designated time and place to respond to the charges. The sureties, upon failing to do so, are liable to forfeit a specified sum determined at the time bail is granted. Bail essentially serves as a security for the prisoner’s due appearance to facilitate his release from imprisonment, as defined in Webster’s 7th New Judicial Dictionary.

You can also read about Bail Under the Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance 1999 here :

Section 9 of the NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE 1999

Avenues for Liberty
To extend liberty to an arrested or imprisoned individual, security is obtained for their appearance at a designated time and place, which is termed as bail. This security is provided by individuals who have bound themselves to ensure the accused’s due appearance, thereby safeguarding him from prolonged imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has elaborated bail as a mechanism developed to harmonise two fundamental human values: the right of an accused to personal freedom and the public’s interest in ensuring the accused’s presence in court for trial (AIR 1979 SC 777).

Constitutional Safeguards
Within the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, liberty is a guaranteed right, preserved in accordance with the law under Article 9. If an accused is relieved from all forms of physical and mental torment during his detention in police or judicial custody, the question of compensation for such an individual arises.

Purpose and Conditions of Bail
The objective of bail is to ensure the accused’s reappearance in subsequent proceedings while affording him liberty and shielding him from unnecessary detention. Therefore, when granting bail, the sureties or conditions should be adequate to ascertain the accused’s presence at the next hearing, without being excessive or punitive.

You can read about Cancellation of (Post-Arrest and Pre-Arrest) Bail here

Cancellation of (Post Arrest & Pre-Arrest) Bail in Pakistan

Engagement of Surety Bond
The rationale behind releasing an accused on a surety bond is to guarantee his attendance on every date of hearing before the Trial Court until the trial concludes. The person standing as surety executes a bond for a specified sum and commits to presenting the accused on each hearing date (PLD 2013 Sindh 68).

You can read about the law on Absconders & Proclaimed Offenders at the link below :

Law on Absconders and Proclaimed offenders in Pakistan

Constitutional Provisions Pertaining to Bail
Articles 4 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan elaborate on bail, where Article 4 underscores the right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, and Article 10 provides safeguards concerning arrest and detention.

Understanding Arrest, Offence, and Types of Offences
Arrest entails the deprivation of personal liberty, and its legality hinges on the authority of law underpinning the custody. The term ‘Offence’ refers to any act or omission penalised by law. Offences are further classified into cognizable and non-cognizable categories, based on the necessity of a warrant for arrest.

Classification of Offences and Bail Procedures
Offences are bifurcated into bailable and non-bailable categories under Section 4(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In bailable offences, the accused possesses an indisputable right to bail, while in non-bailable offences, bail is at the discretion of the court. Various considerations influence the grant of bail in non-bailable offences, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the possibility of securing the accused’s presence at trial, and the likelihood of evidence tampering.

Classification of Offences and Bail Procedures

Under Section 4(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, offences are categorised into two distinct types:

a) Bailable

b) Non-bailable

Bailable Offence

The Criminal Procedure Code delineates that in cases of bailable offences, the accused possesses an indefeasible right to be granted bail. Here, reasonable surety is deemed requisite, elucidating the accused’s entitlement to bail. The first schedule of the criminal procedure code, along with other prevailing laws, defines bailable offences. The stipulations within this section are obligatory, compelling the Court or the officer in charge of the police station to release on bail the individual held in custody accused of a bailable offence. The gravity of the offence is inconsequential for bail purposes in such cases. If an accused, initially charged with a non-bailable offence, is later found to be charged with a bailable offence based on factual evidence, the Court is bound to grant bail without any discretion. Instances where the High Court mandates the Magistrate to grant bail post evidence recording, and the Magistrate deduces that the accused is charged only with a bailable offence, affirm the accused’s right to bail without necessitating evidence recording.

Non-bailable Offence

Non-bailable offences, enumerated in the first schedule and expounded in Section 4(B), encapsulate grave and severe crimes such as dacoity, rape, and murder. Unlike bailable offences, the grant of bail in non-bailable offences resides in the discretion of the court.

Bail Procedures in Bailable and Non-bailable Offences

Per Section 496 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an accused, arrested or detained without a warrant in a bailable offence, is to be released on bail against surety, the quantum of which is determined by the court. The officer in charge of a police station is also vested with the authority to grant bail in bailable offences. Predominantly, superior courts have upheld the accused’s right to bail in bailable offences, affirming that neither the court nor the police officer holds discretion to deny bail in such cases, underscoring the indivisible right of the accused (PLD 1995 SC 35).

In contrast, bail in non-bailable offences is accorded under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contingent upon the court’s discretion post assessment of material evidences that evince no reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty of a non-bailable offence. The considerations for granting bail in non-bailable offences encompass the nature and severity of the offence, a reasonable possibility of securing the accused’s presence at trial, and apprehensions regarding evidence tampering.

When an individual accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without a warrant, or brought before a court, the provisions permit bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused guilty of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for ten years. Specific provisions exist for releasing on bail individuals under sixteen, women, and the infirm or sick accused of such offences. Various circumstances, such as delay in trial conclusion not attributable to the accused, may transmute a non-bailable offence into a bailable one, facilitating bail (2007 YLR 2079).

Furthermore, the superior court has mandated that female accused individuals are entitled to bail in all offences barring financial corruption, murder, and acts of terrorism (2008 YLR 2262). Similarly, ailing accused individuals, devoid of specialized dietary and prompt medical attention in jail, are entitled to bail (PLJ 2013 Lhr 176 (DB)).

Moreover, the provision further mandates that a person accused of such offences shall not be released on bail unless the prosecution has been notified to demonstrate cause against such release. The provision further elucidates conditions where an accused detained for a continuous period exceeding one or two years, depending on the severity of the offence, without trial conclusion, is eligible for bail, unless there’s evidence of delay from the accused side or the accused is a previously convicted offender, deemed hardened, desperate, dangerous, or involved in terrorism (2006 YLR 1449; 2009 YLR 269).

Distinct Forms of Bail

Bail can be chiefly segregated into two categories:

• Pre-arrest bail
• Post-arrest bail

Pre-Arrest Bail

Also referred to as anticipatory bail, pre-arrest bail is often perceived as more challenging to obtain when compared to post-arrest bail. The primary rationale behind this perception lies in the necessity to substantiate the request for bail on robust legal grounds, often amidst a paucity of concrete facts given the nascent stage of the case.

The provision for pre-arrest bail is encapsulated under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It furnishes an avenue for individuals, against whom a case concerning a non-bailable offence has been registered, to seek bail either from the High Court or the Sessions Court prior to their arrest. However, the relief of pre-arrest bail is not indiscriminately granted. It is circumscribed to scenarios where the accused approaches the court with clean hands and noble intent.

Pre-arrest bail may be entertained under certain circumstances. For instance, if the First Information Report (FIR) reveals no commission of an offence or delineates a bailable offence, pre-arrest bail could be considered. Additionally, situations where there’s an evident malafide intent suspected against the police, with prima facie support on record, may also be conducive for granting pre-arrest bail (PLD 1989 SC 192).

Moreover, pre-arrest bail could be granted if the court, discerning the particulars of a case, conjectures that the accused might have been erroneously implicated, and an arrest could potentially inflict irreparable damage to their dignity, honour, and reputation (PLD 1990 SC 42).

Post-Arrest Bail

Post-arrest bail, as the nomenclature suggests, is the bail sought following the arrest of an individual. Unlike pre-arrest bail, the application for post-arrest bail often comes with a more robust set of facts and legal arguments since the case has transitioned beyond the preliminary stage. The criteria and considerations for granting post-arrest bail might vary from those of pre-arrest bail, primarily due to the change in circumstances post-arrest.

Both forms of bail, pre and post-arrest, are instrumental in upholding the principle of personal liberty and ensuring that the justice system operates fairly and efficiently. Through these provisions, the legal framework strives to maintain a judicious balance between the rights of the accused and the societal interest in ensuring law and order.

Core Elements of Pre-Arrest Bail

The application of pre-arrest bail is predicated on a few critical factors that require meticulous examination by the court. A glimpse into ulterior motives, the severity of the alleged offence, and the readiness of the accused to surrender to the court play pivotal roles in the determination of such bail. Here are the nuanced ingredients and conditions for pre-arrest bail:

• Ulterior Motives for Detention:
• A significant precursor for pre-arrest bail is the discernment of ulterior motives behind the potential detention of the petitioner. If there’s a palpable doubt regarding the accused’s intent to partake in illegal acts, and malicious intent is discerned on part of the authorities, pre-arrest bail could be on the cards. The fear of imminent detention, especially when exhibited with proof, tends to sway the scales in favour of pre-arrest bail.
• Severeness of Offence:
• Interestingly, the heinousness of the alleged offence does not bear weight on the consideration for pre-arrest bail. The essence of pre-arrest bail transcends the severity of the offence, focusing more on other legal and procedural dimensions.
• Investigation Conclusions:
• The conclusion of investigations plays a crucial part. If at the end of an investigation, it is revealed that the accused has not committed any offence, pre-arrest bail can be confirmed.
• Accused’s Surrender:
• A cardinal stipulation for pre-arrest bail is the physical surrender of the accused before the court. This conveys the accused’s acknowledgment of the legal process and their readiness to adhere to the legal protocols.
• A Fit Case for Court’s Discretion:
• The case of the petitioner should manifest as a fit case for the court to exercise its discretion concerning the confirmation of bail. If the circumstances present a justifiable scenario for bail, the court may exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner.
• Conditions as per Section 498 Cr. PC, 1898:
  • Real apprehension of impending arrest
  • Physical surrender to the court
  • Apprehension of harassment, particularly by the police
  • Merit-based fitness of the case for bail, keeping in tandem with provisions of section 497 of CrPC.

The prerequisites and conditions for pre-arrest bail are meticulously crafted to uphold the sanctity of the legal process while ensuring that the rights and dignities of individuals are not trampled upon arbitrarily.

Post-Arrest Bail

Post-arrest bail comes into play subsequent to the arrest of an individual, encompassing both bailable and non-bailable offences. It is solicited under section 497 of Cr.PC, post detention by law enforcement. The granular conditions for post-arrest bail include reasonable grounds of belief regarding the accused’s guilt, and the nature of the offence not falling within the prohibitive clauses of section 497 of Cr.PC. The procedure aims to ensure a fair chance for the accused to seek bail, contingent upon the merits and nature of the case.

Protective Bail

Protective bail serves as a conduit for the accused to approach the concerned district court for pre-arrest bail, without delving into the merits of the case. It caters particularly to situations where the accused, due to various circumstances, may not be able to approach the court of sessions.

Procedure for Pre-Arrest Bail

The procedure for soliciting pre-arrest bail, also termed as anticipatory bail, is more demanding due to the preliminary stage of the case and scant availability of facts. A person fearing wrongful arrest, perhaps due to vendettas or trumped-up charges, can approach a competent court under the code of criminal procedure to seek bail. The court, upon finding merit and adhering to the stipulated conditions, has the authority to grant bail, thereby safeguarding the individual from potential wrongful detention.

Each type of bail, with its unique set of prerequisites and procedures, embodies the judicious balance the legal system strives to maintain between upholding law and order, and preserving individual rights and liberties.

Bail Following Conviction

Post-conviction bail emerges as a noteworthy mechanism in the appellate stage, where the accused seeks release during the appeal process. Upon acceptance of the appeal for hearing, if the court discerns substantial grounds for release, it may grant bail under section 426. This form of bail is a testament to the evolving dynamics of a case even post-conviction, and the legal avenues available to the accused to seek reprieve during the appeal process.

Bail in Complaint Cases

The narrative of bail extends to complaint cases as well, with section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure furnishing the procedural framework. In instances where a complaint has been lodged but the individual is not technically an accused, the magistrate has the discretion to summon witnesses or direct a police inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the complaint. This procedural route empowers the magistrate to mandate bail, underlining the legal safeguards even in the preliminary stages of a complaint case.

Kinds of Bail by Nature

• Interim Bail: Interim bail presents a temporal respite for individuals awaiting the court’s decision on permanent bail. Often, the courts require certain documents from lower courts or investigative agencies to make an informed decision regarding bail. However, procuring these documents may entail a time-consuming process, leaving the accused or the convicted in a precarious position. Interim bail acts as a temporary shield, allowing the individual to avoid incarceration while the higher courts await the requisite documents. This mechanism is indicative of the legal system’s cognizance of procedural delays and its impact on the accused, striving to mitigate undue hardship.

The legal landscape around bail—whether pre-arrest, post-arrest, post-conviction, in complaint cases, or interim—illustrates a comprehensive framework aimed at balancing the scales of justice. It underscores the importance of nuanced examination at each stage, be it during the complaint registration, post-arrest, post-conviction, or during the pendency of an appeal. It also reflects the legal system’s emphasis on safeguarding individual rights while ensuring adherence to the law, showcasing the multi-faceted nature of bail provisions within the criminal justice system. Through these varied bail provisions, the law carves out pathways for individuals to seek judicial reprieve, while allowing the courts to exercise discretion based on the merits and peculiarities of each case.

The discourse on the granting of bail is an intricate one, encapsulating various dimensions of legal scrutiny to ensure the judicious application of this legal provision. The criteria set forth for the examination of bail applications provide a structured yet flexible framework for the courts to navigate the myriad facets of each case. They underscore the need for a meticulous examination of the facts, the character of the accused, and the implications of granting bail, among other considerations.

The enumerated points (a to n) delineate a thorough roadmap for the court to follow while adjudicating on bail applications. These points embrace the necessity of gauging the likelihood of the accused having committed the alleged offence, the nature and gravity of the charge, the potential severity of punishment in case of conviction, and the likelihood of the accused absconding if released on bail. Furthermore, the character, means, and standing of the accused, alongside the potential danger of witness tampering, are crucial elements to be weighed. The court is also guided to consider the time the petitioner has already spent behind bars, the specifics of the First Information Report, and the possibility of false implication. These considerations are underpinned by the overarching principle of presuming the accused to be innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental tenet of criminal justice.

In cases entailing more severe punishments—such as death or life imprisonment—the criteria for bail scrutiny are further honed to include the benefit of reasonable doubt, identification of the accused, the role and presence of the accused at the crime scene, and the allegations and statements made in the FIR. These additional facets provide a more granular lens through which the court can assess the merits of granting bail in serious offences.

The concluding remarks encapsulate the essence of the criminal justice ethos—maintaining the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The flexibility embedded in the bail laws reflects an acknowledgment of the varying circumstances surrounding each case, entrusting the Trial Court with the discretion to evaluate each case on its individual merits. The Supreme Court’s restrained intervention in bail matters, barring instances of perverse, arbitrary, or capricious judicial discretion, underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between judicial autonomy and higher judicial oversight.

The meticulous structure of considerations for bail applications exemplifies the legal system’s endeavor to uphold justice, protect individual rights, and ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Through this structured yet flexible approach, the law seeks to navigate the complex terrain of criminal justice, striving to achieve a fair and just outcome in each case.

The concept of bail is an integral part of the criminal justice system which serves the purpose of ensuring the appearance of the accused person at subsequent proceedings, while safeguarding their right to liberty. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, stipulates the provisions for bail under its various sections, with each catering to different circumstances surrounding the accused person. The crux of bail lies in its ability to transfer the accused from judicial custody to the custody of sureties who vow to ensure the accused’s presence in court whenever necessitated.

A noteworthy variant of bail is the Protective Bail under Section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which precedes the arrest of the individual. This form of bail is often perceived as a safeguard against potential false involvement or unjustifiable harassment that the accused might endure. While it shares a common objective with bail before arrest under Section 496, protective bail distinctly aims at providing a protective umbrella against the anticipation of arrest stemming from mala fide intentions or ulterior motives. The underlying rationale is to preserve the dignity, honour, and reputation of the individual which may be irrevocably tarnished due to an unjust arrest.

The grant of bail, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest, hinges on several criteria laid down by the law. In the case of Pre-Arrest Bail, granted by the District and Session Court, the court considers factors such as ulterior motives behind the criminal case, heinousness of the offence, the completion of the investigation showcasing innocence of the accused, physical surrender by the accused, and readiness to submit the bail bond as per the stipulations of the Criminal Procedure Code.

On the flip side, Post-Arrest Bail, which can be sought in both bailable and non-bailable offences, pivots around the assurance that the accused will make themselves available for interrogation, refrain from tampering with the evidence or witnesses, not flee the country without court’s permission, and submit surety bonds to the satisfaction of the court. The fundamental prerequisites for Post Arrest Bail under Section 497 encompass the exclusion from the prohibitory clause, absence of reasonable grounds for the commission of a non-bailable offence, the existence of sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt, and the readiness to submit the bail bond as mandated.

A quintessential aspect of bail in both pre and post-arrest scenarios is the submission of bail bonds, which serves as a financial guarantee towards the assurance of the accused’s adherence to the conditions of bail. This economic aspect is intertwined with the legal framework to ensure that the objectives of bail are not frivolously undermined.

The bail mechanism, encapsulated within the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, thus, unfolds as a balanced approach towards upholding the rights of the accused while ensuring the smooth operation of the legal proceedings. The Protective Bail under Section 498 holds a significant place in this structure as it anticipates and averts the potential misuse of law even before the arrest, reinforcing the essence of justice and fairness that underpins the criminal justice system of Pakistan.

The jurisprudential landscape regarding pre-arrest and protective bail in Pakistan has been elaborated through various judgments by the higher judiciary. The essence of these judgments lies in ensuring the right to liberty and the fair administration of justice, while balancing the interests of the accused and the state. The cited cases, while varied in their facts and issues, bring forth an insightful understanding of the procedural and legal principles surrounding pre-arrest and protective bail.

In the case of Abid Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan (2023 PCrLJ 678, Lahore High Court), the court elucidates on the types of pre-arrest bail, including ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmed pre-arrest bail, protective ad-interim pre-arrest bail, and transitory ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The case also highlights the necessity of the accused’s presence before the court for the grant of pre-arrest bail, a prerequisite that stands as a testament to the accused’s intention to submit to the judicial process. This reiterates the procedural mandate of physical presence, ensuring that the accused does not evade the course of justice.

In a similar vein, Malik Azmat Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan (2023 PCrLJ 290, Lahore High Court) delves into the scope and object of protective bail, which is not explicitly provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The High Courts, invoking Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., and Article 199 of the Constitution, accommodate accused persons enabling them to approach the concerned Court for remedy without delving into the merits of the case at that stage. The case underscores the protective nature of such bail, which serves a limited purpose and does not entitle the accused to pre-arrest bail as of right, drawing a distinction between anticipatory or pre-arrest bail and protective bail.

Furthermore, the case of Raheem Ullah Khan vs State (2023 YLR 1246, Islamabad) emphasises the relevancy of absconsion in bail matters. It posits a nuanced perspective that while absconsion is a relevant consideration, the refusal of bail to an absconder is not an absolute rule. When an absconder seeks protective bail for surrender before the competent court and provides a reasonable explanation for his abscondence, the court may, in its discretion, grant transitory bail to uphold the person’s right to access to justice.

The Supreme Court, in Syed Raza Hussain Bukhari vs State (2022 PLD 743), elucidates on the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail. The High Court, while hearing a bail petition, also exercises its constitutional jurisdiction as a guardian of the fundamental rights of the accused, going beyond the legislative parameters that regulate the grant of bail in the offence. This case brings to light the constitutional safeguard against any sub-constitutional legislation that might circumscribe the protective constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts in bail matters.

The case of Ali J. Siddiqui vs Federation of Pakistan (2020 PLD 9, Karachi High Court Sindh) reflects on the conversion of a petition into a petition for protective bail and the grant of the same to enable the petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction. This case showcases the procedural flexibility and the objective of the courts to uphold the rights of the individuals while ensuring the adherence to the judicial process.

The vast array of cases presents a rich tapestry of legal principles and procedural nuances surrounding pre-arrest and protective bail in Pakistan. They collectively enshrine the overarching principle of ensuring justice, safeguarding individual rights, and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Through these judgments, the higher judiciary in Pakistan continues to evolve and elucidate the legal framework governing pre-arrest and protective bail, thereby contributing to the robustness of the criminal justice system.

2023 P Cr.L J 290

The exposition of the judgment in 2023 P Cr.L J 290 by Honourable Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh of Lahore High Court is indeed an illustrative elucidation on the notion of protective bail within the legal system of Pakistan. Your summary of the judgment provided a comprehensive view of the multiple facets discussed, ranging from the conceptual underpinning of ‘access to justice’ to the practical application and justification of protective/transitory bail within Pakistan’s constitutional and legal framework.

The judgment profoundly delves into the essence of ‘access to justice’ as a fundamental human right, aligning it with the broader aim of ensuring remedies for grievances and fostering a just society. This alignment is not only central to the legal discourse in Pakistan but resonates with international legal norms, as indicated by references to international agreements within the judgment. The tracing of ‘access to justice’ within the historical and legal context of Pakistan establishes a narrative that places the Constitution of Pakistan as a cornerstone in enshrining this principle.

Moreover, the judgment’s emphasis on ‘access to justice’ and ‘due process of law’ as quintessential for safeguarding individual rights and facilitating a fair trial is a reflection of the progressive legal thought. The detailed discussion on protective/transitory bail as a constitutional right, elaborated within the judgment, adds a significant layer to the understanding of how the law aims to balance the rights of the accused with the imperative of justice. It is noteworthy how the judgment elucidates on the mechanism of protective/transitory bail, allowing the accused to surrender and participate in legal proceedings, thereby promoting the spirit of ‘access to justice’.

The specifics of granting protective/transitory bail to the petitioner, as outlined in the judgment, illustrates a structured approach in ensuring the petitioner’s appearance before the competent court, while also addressing concerns surrounding the fugitive status. The conclusion and final order of the judgment, encapsulating the decision to grant protective/transitory bail for a specified period, underscores the essence of enabling the accused to seek pre-arrest bail, thereby adhering to the broader constitutional ethos of ‘access to justice’.

The cited judgments, particularly from 2017 YLR 2423 Islamabad, 2016 PCrLJ 1773 Lahore-High-Court-Lahore, and 2015 SCMR 1394 Supreme-Court, among others, serve as a rich tapestry of legal precedent and discourse surrounding the concept and application of protective bail in varying circumstances. Each case reflects a nuanced understanding of protective bail within the contours of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, accentuating the importance of protective bail as a mechanism to uphold the rule of law and ensure a fair judicial process.

The judgment in discussion, through its meticulous examination of the legal and constitutional framework surrounding protective bail, contributes significantly to the existing body of jurisprudence. It not only enriches the legal understanding of protective/transitory bail but also affirms the overarching principle of ‘access to justice’, which is fundamental to the rule of law and the administration of justice in Pakistan.

The citations below revolve around instances where protective bail was sought and granted under various circumstances in different cases across Pakistan, chiefly by the High Courts of Sindh and Lahore. 

The protective bail, as seen in these cases, serves as a temporary shield for the accused, allowing them a specified period to surrender before the Trial Court, or to seek pre-arrest bail, amidst different allegations and charges. The commonality among these citations is the judicial exercise of discretion in granting protective bail based on the facts and arguments presented.

In the case of Muhammad Jamal versus Federation of Pakistan (2012 YLR 167), protective bail was granted by the Karachi High Court without delving into the merits of the case, subject to furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. one million. The case involved allegations of untrue statements and other offences under the Customs Act, Sales Tax Act, and Income Tax Ordinance. The concession of protective bail was strictly time-bound, ensuring the accused’s prompt appearance before the Trial Court.

Yaseen versus the State (2012 MLD 751) exhibited a scenario where pre-arrest bail was denied due to the accused’s previous misuse of bail concession. The accused, after being granted bail, absconded for nineteen months, showcasing a disregard for the judicial process. The High Court took a stern stance against the accused’s absconsion, refusing the application for pre-arrest bail.

The case of Mubashir Mehmood Khan alias Gori Khan versus State (2011 YLR 2454) unfolded in the Lahore High Court, where bail was refused due to the accused’s alleged grave act of firing a shot at the deceased, with substantial evidence aligning against the accused. His repetitive efforts to seek bail, coupled with a commenced trial, led to the dismissal of the bail petition.

Muhammad Akbar versus State (2011 YLR 2259) presented an accusation of narcotics possession and trafficking. The accused sought protective bail to evade alleged police harassment and false implication. The High Court, without delving into the merits, granted protective bail for seven days, enabling the accused to surrender before the Trial Court.

In Nawabzada Syed Shams Haider versus State (2010 YLR 3279), the accused was granted protective bail for a week based on his contention of being framed to tarnish his political reputation. The Lahore High Court, in this instance, facilitated the accused with a temporary relief to present his case before the Trial Court.

The cases of Afrahim Shakeel versus State (2010 PCrLJ 589) and Qasir Javed versus S.H.O., Police Station Saddar Jhelum (2010 PCrLJ 587) illustrated instances where protective bail was granted to enable the accused to seek pre-arrest bail from the Trial Court, and to challenge illegal detention, respectively.

Muhammad Yaseen alias Yaseen versus State (2010 YLR 2334) and Ghulam Asghar versus State (2010 PCrLJ 1474) both depicted scenarios where protective bail facilitated the accused to approach the Trial Court for bail before arrest amidst allegations of violence and robbery respectively.

Lastly, Haji Muhammad Ali Khan versus State (2010 PCrLJ 310) concerned an accused granted protective bail to seek pre-arrest bail from the Trial Court, as the accused contended that they were prevented from approaching the Sessions Court due to a threat from the opposing party.

These citations collectively exhibit the nuanced judicial approach towards granting protective bail, tailored to the specifics of each case, whilst maintaining a cautious balance to uphold justice and procedural integrity.

It’s apparent that the judicial discourse in Pakistan regarding protective bail is underpinned by a variety of factors including the nature of the allegations, the accused’s prior conduct, and the perceived threat or injustice that may befall the accused if protective bail isn’t granted. Moreover, the discretion of the High Courts in these matters emerges as a vital determinant in the interim relief provided to the accused.

Taking a closer look at some of the specifics, in the case of Muhammad Jamal versus Federation of Pakistan, the Karachi High Court leaned towards a more conservative stance by demanding a solvent surety of Rs. one million. This could be interpreted as a measure to ensure the accused’s compliance with the subsequent legal proceedings.

The contrasting outcomes in Yaseen versus the State and Mubashir Mehmood Khan alias Gori Khan versus State accentuate the courts’ consideration of the accused’s conduct post the alleged offense and their engagement with the judicial process. Yaseen’s absconsion post-bail, and Mubashir’s numerous attempts at seeking bail amidst substantial evidence against him, seemingly dissuaded the courts from granting bail.

Muhammad Akbar versus State demonstrates a scenario where the accused’s claim of false implication and police harassment were compelling enough for the court to grant protective bail, albeit without addressing the merits of the case. This indicates a level of responsiveness to the accused’s circumstances outside the legal allegations.

In Nawabzada Syed Shams Haider versus State, political implications and an alleged attempt to tarnish the accused’s reputation played a role in the grant of protective bail. This case touches on a broader theme of the potential intersection between legal proceedings and political dynamics.

The cases of Afrahim Shakeel versus State and Qasir Javed versus S.H.O., Police Station Saddar Jhelum echo a common judicial approach of granting temporary relief to facilitate a fair chance for the accused to seek legal remedy or challenge unlawful detentions.

Furthermore, the case of Ghulam Asghar versus State brings to light the potential misuse of the judicial process by the authorities, as reflected in the issuance of non-bailable warrants without a prior thorough investigation.

Lastly, Haji Muhammad Ali Khan versus State underlines a scenario where external threats hindered the accused’s ability to seek legal remedy, prompting the court to intervene by granting protective bail.

In summation, these citations mirror a multi-faceted judicial approach towards protective bail in Pakistan, reflecting a complex interplay of legal, procedural, and sometimes external factors. This nuanced approach underscores the courts’ endeavor to uphold justice, ensure the accused’s rights, and maintain the integrity of the judicial process amidst a diverse array of circumstances.

FAQs on  bail in Pakistan :

• What are the different types of bail?
  • Pre-arrest bail, post-arrest bail, bail after conviction, bail in complaint case, interim bail, and regular bail are among the types of bail discussed.
• On what grounds can pre-arrest bail be granted?
  • Pre-arrest bail can be granted if there’s a real apprehension of impending arrest, the petitioner physically surrenders to the court, there’s apprehension of harassment, especially from the police, and it’s a fit case on merits for the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner.
• What is interim bail and why might it be granted?
  • Interim bail is a temporary bail granted for a specific period while awaiting documents from lower courts to make a decision on permanent bail. It aims to avoid jail time for the accused during this period.
• What considerations does the court make when deciding on a bail application?
  • The court considers factors such as the nature and gravity of the charge, the character and standing of the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the potential for witness tampering, among others.
• How does the law regard an accused individual in the context of bail?
  • The law presumes the accused to be innocent until proven guilty, making the law of bail flexible to cater to the probable acquittal of the accused if they are not proven to have committed the offence.
• What are the additional considerations for bail in cases of severe punishments like death or life imprisonment?
  • In such cases, the court considers the benefit of reasonable doubt, identification of the accused, the role and presence of the accused at the crime scene, and the allegations and statements made in the FIR.
• What authority does the High Court have in the matter of bail?
  • The High Court can entertain applications for protective bail, especially if the accused has a political background preventing them from approaching the court of sessions.
• Why is the discretion of the Trial Court emphasized in the granting of bail?
  • The discretion of the Trial Court is emphasized to ensure a judicious examination of each case on its individual merits, promoting a balance between judicial autonomy and oversight.
• Can bail be granted after a conviction?
  • Yes, bail can be granted after a conviction if the appeal has been accepted for hearing and the court observes grounds for the release of the accused.
• What procedure should one follow to apply for pre-arrest bail?
  • A person apprehending arrest on false or trumped-up charges or due to enmity can approach the court of session, High Court, or another court of competent jurisdiction under the code of criminal procedure to seek pre-arrest bail. The court may grant bail if it deems fit, upon examination of the circumstances and merits of the case.  

_______________________________________________________________

Older version of this article is below:

Bail is a crucial legal concept that allows an accused person to be released from custody while awaiting trial or resolution of their case. In Pakistan, the bail process is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which provides guidelines and safeguards for the granting of bail. This article aims to shed light on the intricacies of bail in Pakistan, empowering individuals with valuable information about their rights and options.

Bail, in simple terms, refers to the temporary release of a person accused of a crime, who has been detained or arrested by the authorities. The objective of bail is to strike a balance between the presumption of innocence and the necessity to ensure the accused person’s appearance in court.

Types of Bail in Pakistan

In Pakistan, bail can be classified into three types:

1. Pre-Arrest Bail: This type of bail is granted before an individual’s arrest or detention by the authorities. It is usually sought when there is an imminent threat of arrest, based on a genuine fear of being falsely implicated in a criminal case.
2. Post-Arrest Bail: Post-arrest bail refers to bail sought after the arrest or detention of an individual. It is the most common form of bail application in Pakistan and can be granted by a court if certain conditions are met, such as the accused person’s non-involvement in the offense, lack of flight risk, or insufficient evidence.
3. Interim Bail: Interim bail is granted for a specific period, usually during the pendency of the investigation or when the court requires additional time to evaluate the merits of a bail application. It acts as temporary relief until a final decision is made.

Bail Process in Pakistan

The process of obtaining bail in Pakistan involves the following steps:

1. Filing a Bail Application: A bail application must be filed before the appropriate court, usually the Sessions Court or the High Court, depending on the nature and severity of the offence.
2. Bail Hearing: The court evaluates the bail application and considers various factors such as the nature of the offence, evidence against the accused, likelihood of flight, and the accused’s criminal record. The court may also hear arguments from the prosecution and defence before making a decision.
3. Conditions and Surety: If the court grants bail, it may impose certain conditions such as the submission of a surety amount, surrendering travel documents, periodic reporting to the police station, or prohibition from contacting witnesses or victims.
4. Appeals: If bail is denied, the accused person can file an appeal in a higher court, challenging the lower court’s decision. The higher court re-evaluates the bail application based on the available evidence and legal principles.

Bail is an essential aspect of Pakistan’s criminal justice system, ensuring that individuals are not unduly subjected to pre-trial detention. Understanding the bail process and the requirements for a successful bail application is crucial for anyone accused of a crime in Pakistan. It is advisable to seek professional legal assistance to navigate through the complexities of the bail process and protect your rights effectively.

The legal intricacies of each bail matter may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case. If you wish to consult with a qualified legal professional from the Josh and Mak Team for personalized advice and guidance regarding bail matters please get in touch at [email protected]

The main section for bail in the CrPC reads as follows : Section 497: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

When bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence

(1) When any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought-before a Court, he may be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or ¹[imprisonment] for life or imprisonment for ten years:

Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years ²[or any woman] or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be release on bail,

(2)       If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

(3)       An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall record in writing his or its reasons for so doing.

(4)       If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds, for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall released the accused, if he is in custody on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.

(5)       A High Court or Court of Session and, in the case of a person released by itself, any other Court may cause a person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody.

Anticipatory Bail, Law, and Procedure in Pakistan

Anticipatory bail, also known as pre-arrest bail, is a rare and limited legal relief in Pakistan. It is granted in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is evidence of malafide intentions or enmity on the part of the complainant or police. The law governing pre-arrest bail is outlined in Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). High Courts or Session Courts have the authority to grant pre-arrest bail, but it must be done in accordance with the guidelines set by superior courts.

Conditions for Granting Pre-Arrest Bail: To obtain pre-arrest bail, certain conditions must be fulfilled:

1. Genuine Apprehension of Imminent Arrest: The petitioner must have a genuine and proven fear of imminent arrest.
2. Physical Surrender: The petitioner should be willing to physically surrender to the court.
3. Apprehension of Harassment: There must be a valid concern that unjustified arrest may lead to harassment and irreparable humiliation.
4. Meritorious Case: The case should have valid merits supporting the need for pre-arrest bail.

General Rules for Pre-Arrest Bail: The court considers various aspects before granting pre-arrest bail, including:

a) Mala Fide or False Implication: Pre-arrest bail can be granted if there is evidence of mala fide intentions, ulterior motives, or false implication against the accused.

b) Gravity of the Crime: The seriousness of the offense, such as murder or rape, should not automatically disqualify the petitioner from obtaining pre-arrest bail.

c) Willingness to Cooperate: Courts may consider the accused’s willingness to cooperate with the law and their physical surrender.

d) Health Conditions: Courts may take a lenient view if the accused is facing health problems, and the case seems to be filed with malicious intent.

e) Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Case: If the case appears to be a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense, pre-arrest bail may be considered.

Conditions of Pre-Arrest Bail: The court may impose certain conditions when granting pre-arrest bail. These conditions may include:

a) Making oneself available for police interrogation as required.

b) Not influencing witnesses or attempting to dissuade them from disclosing facts.

c) Seeking court permission before leaving the country.

d) Depositing a specified amount of money or monetary asset with the court.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail is a legal safeguard available to protect individuals from possible false arrests or malicious prosecutions. It is an extraordinary relief, and courts consider various factors before granting pre-arrest bail in Pakistan. The objective is to balance the interests of justice while safeguarding the rights of the accused.

Reforming Bail Law in Pakistan: The Need for Modern Legislation

Bail, a crucial aspect of criminal justice, serves to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring the smooth functioning of the legal process. In Pakistan, bail is granted as a matter of right in bailable offenses, but for non-bailable offenses, the accused must prove that there are no reasonable grounds for believing they committed the offense, and further inquiry into their guilt is required.

The colonial-era language of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1898 governs the process for seeking bail in non-bailable offenses. This archaic provision puts the burden on the accused to approach the court and tentatively assess the merits of the case. However, this assessment varies among different courts, leading to inconsistencies in bail decisions.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s approach to bail applications has shown polarity. While declining relief in some cases based on incriminatory evidence, the court has extended protection from arbitrary arrest in others, emphasizing the safeguarding of fundamental rights.

The state of bail law in Pakistan has resulted in unnecessary arrests and overcrowded prisons, with a large percentage of under-trial prisoners awaiting bail. This situation has put citizens at risk and made bail law seem redundant. The need of the hour is to revamp the outdated colonial law and introduce modern legislation similar to the UK’s Bail Act of 1976.

In modernizing bail law, the burden of proving substantial grounds for denying bail should shift from the accused to the prosecution. The court should consider factors such as the accused’s character and antecedents, previous record of bail, strength of evidence, nature and seriousness of the offense, and the probable method of dealing with the offender.

Conditions for granting bail should also be given statutory footing, including residence, reporting to a police station, curfew, electronic tagging, etc. Only if these conditions cannot dispel real risk should the accused be remanded into custody.

To ensure accountability, police officers should be encouraged to exercise their power to grant bail in non-bailable offenses and provide written reasons for their decisions. Additionally, criminal law should be amended to provide compensation to acquitted individuals who had been incarcerated during trial.

A recent judgment by the Supreme Court has emphasized considering constitutional grounds when granting bail in NAB cases, going beyond the narrow grounds of Section 497 CrPC. While this development is significant, comprehensive criminal justice reforms are needed, and the responsibility lies with the legislature.

The need for bail law reform is urgent to safeguard the rights and liberty of individuals accused of non-bailable offenses while ensuring a fair and efficient criminal justice system in Pakistan. By adopting modern legislation and enhancing the presumption of innocence, the nation can move towards a more just and equitable legal framework.

Important Court Decisions on Bail in Pakistan

1. Abetment--Source of information about abetment not mentioned in F.I.R.—Supplementary Statements of Eye-witness recorded after 24 hours to the effect that they heard from the “Baithak’ of petitioner asking his son to murder deceased–Supplementary Statements recorded being after thought need not be given weight, when according to law supplementary statement cannot be recorded–Bail was allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lah.) 69
2. Abscondance of accused after grant of statutory bail–Accused’s arrest after one month of abscondance–Entitlement to bail–Accused was granted bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial after remaining in jail firstly for more than four years and secondly for nearly three years after his alleged absconsion for one month–Applicant (accused) had admittedly. remained in continuous custody for more than 7 and ½ years except said break for one month–Applicant’s case falls within Proviso three of S. 497(1) Cr.P.C. 1898–Bail was allowed to applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 400,000 (Rs. four lacs only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1459 Abscondence disentitles absconder to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case. PLJ 2004 Cr. Pesh 54 Abscondance, ground of Refusal of bail:–Held: Abscondence per-se may not to be a sole ground for refusal of bail, but it is indeed one of factors which could be taken into consideration by a court of law. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 34
3. Accused all along associated with the co-accused :– Accused approaching head of family of kidnapped, telling him not to worry – Accused accompanying other accused at time of demanding ransome – Co-accused receiving part of ransom in presence of accused – Accused supporting co-accused on dispute over ransom amount – Accused escorting kidnapped in jeep – Accused all along associated with the co-accused – Bail refused to accused in circumstances. 1988 P Cr. L J 1198
4. Accused involved in number of cases of robbery:- Petitioner was accused in a number of cases of robbery was not sufficient to deprive him of liberty–Record did not show as to why identification test of accused through eye-witnesses was not held when his name did not appear in the F.I.R.–Mere production by accused of some cash alleged to have been robbed by him, in absence of any other evidence was not enough for his involvement in the case–Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and accused was allowed bail accordingly. PLJ 1997 SC 1153
5. Accused was not named in F.I.R. – Except hearsay reference by alleged abductee about involvement of accused in crime there was nothing on record to connect the accused with offence – Accused who was named in F.I.R., had named four persons as being involved in offence, with him, but name of accused was not included among those four persons – Business rivalry between parties was the reason that complainant’s brother had maliciously named the accused – Case against accused being that of further inquiry, he was ordered to be released on bail. 2001 MLD 963 Accused were not initially named as accused in the F.I.R. by the complainant‑‑‑Accused had not caused any injury either to the deceased or to the prosecution witness‑‑‑Role of ineffective firing was even not attributed to accused at the time of occurrence‑‑‑Investigation based on special oath involving the accused in the case could not be given any weight as Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 did not provide for such procedure and Art.l63 of Qanun‑e­-Shahadat, 1984 had barred the settlement of criminal cases on special oath‑‑‑Involvement of accused in the case, thus, was a matter of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.   2000 Y L R 1294 Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad and others PLD 1990 SC 83 and Hussain Ahmad alias Madni v: The State 1996 PCr.LJ 130 ref.
6. Ad-Interim–Post-arrest bail–Findings of innocence recorded by police regarding petitioner have not been found by High Court to he based upon sound material–Eye-witnesses mentioned in FIR, including complainant, have fully implicating petitioner and attributing him a role of effectively firing at deceased during occurrence–In these circumstances admission of petitioner to extraordinary concession of ad-interim post-arrest bail by my learned brother Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J. on 28.3.2002 (as his lordship then was before this retirement on 31.3.2002) has, if I may observe with great respect, been found by me to be rather overindulgent–Prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in petitioner’s involvement. in offences alleged against him and, therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed and order regarding admission of petitioner to ad-interim post-arrest bail is hereby recalled– PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 959 Admitting to bail or allowing bail is an entirely different act from taking, accepting or approving bail after its allowance–Former is generally considered to be a judicial act to be performed by a Court or a judicial officer while latter may be a ministerial function to be performed by an authorized officer.PLJ 2001 SC 817
7. Affidavits of prosecution witnesses :– Affidavits of prosecution witnesses exonerating the accused in the presence of statement of the abductees on the record would not damage the prosecution case at this stage-Abductees in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C had charged the accused with forcible abduction, Zina and wrongful confinement-Absence of marks of violence on the body of the abductee was of no material significance as she had allegedly been confined for a number of days at the point of fire-arms-Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. 2004 P Cr. L J 548
8. Age Factor:- Contention that Petitioner at time of occurrence was only 14 years and 5 months according to School Leaving Certificate—Petitioner fire a single shot whereas medico-legal report showing one fire injury on front and other on the back–Co-accused though armed did not fire at all as per FIR–Held : According to birth certificate petitioner’s age is more than 16 years, the entry of his birth was made just after a week after his birth–School Leaving Certificate obtained after occurrence cannot be preferred over same—Petitioner having strong motive to kill deceased–Injuries claimed will not exonerate him as he played active role–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lahore) 150 Age of petitioner was about fourteen years on day of occurrence—Charge of murder—Bail allowed to petitioner—S. 497 (1) proviso, Criminal P.C. P L J 1980 Cr. C. (Lahore) 183
9. Allegation of Murder and abduction:- As for record, petitioner himself informed complainant about incident of abduction–There is no evidence that petitioner was a party to conspiracy of murder–Prima facie it indicates that accused sitting in Pajero car were on track of deceased and succeeded in abducting him from park–Petitioner’s so-called confession before police cannot be proved against him under law–Held: Prima facie there are no reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner has committed offence alleged against him–Bail allowed. PLJ 1991 Cr.C (Lahore) 319
10. Amendment required in the printed Form of surety bond – When the interim bail already granted up to a certain date is extended then care should be taken that the accused shall furnish bond up to that date or suitable amendment be incorporated in the surety bond that the sureties wilt be responsible to produce the accused in Court on next date of hearing or on any other subsequent date fixed till the final disposal of the matter. High Court observed that ordinarily what happens is that an interim bail is granted up to a certain date, thereafter, if the same is extended then care should be taken that accused shall furnish bond up to that date or suitable amendment be incorporated in the bond which is obtained from the sureties that they will be responsible to produce the accused on next date of hearing or on any date in the bail matter fixed subsequent to that date. So far as the present pro forma of Surety Deed is concerned, it provides that the surety will be responsible for production of the accused on one date only which is provided next after grant of ad interim bail. On account of this defect the Zamanat Nama which is available in printed form is accepted in routine without realising the consequences as to what will be situation, in case the matter is adjourned to some other date and the bail is extended further. The printed Form therefore, should incorporate a covenant that the surety shall be bound till the disposal of application for pre-arrest bail or in the alternative the surety should give an undertaking to produce the accused till then. Necessary amendment may be incorporated in the Zamanat Nama and in future care should be taken by the Courts below in this behalf. PLD 2001 Lah.545
11. Anti-Corruption Act, 1947–Petitioner was behind the bars for last more than two months and investigation was complete–According to State counsel he was not wanted for any further purpose of same–Offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.—Bail allowed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 336
12. Appreciation of evidence at the stage of bail–Extent–Evidence or material brought on record by prosecution would not be appreciated in its minute detail at the stage of bail, rather the same should be taken view of tentatively–Appreciation of evidence and drawing of conclusions therefrom being exclusive function of trial Court, superior Courts should not appreciate the same while dealing with bail matters–Ocular version of prosecution was apparently corroborated by medical reports–Even if defence version to the effect that ocular version and medical reports were at variance, still value of medical evidence was only for purpose of corroboration and in the nature of confirmatory evidence–Conviction in a criminal case can be recorded on the statement of eye-witnesses without even corroboration, provided witnesses were telling the truth–Corroborative evidence should not be of the same probative force as that of direct evidence–While ascertaining reasonable grounds, Courts should not probe into merits of case but they have to look only at the material placed before them by prosecution to see whether some tangible evidence was available against accused, which if left un-rebutted would lead to inference of guilt–At bail stage, if there Was material which if remains un-rebutted, prima facie, connects accused with offence punishable with death or transportation for life, he must be refused concession of bail–Prosecutionv version having remained unrebutted, there remains no reasonable ground for believing that accused was not guilty of offence punishable with death or transportation for life–Accused was, thus, not entitled to concession of bail. PLJ 2002 SC (AJK) 711985 PSC 62; PLD 1988 SC (AJK) 14; PLD 1981 SC (AJK) 10; PLD 1967 SC 340; NLR 1978 Criminal 535; 1979 PCr-LJ 352 and PLD 1971 SC 174 ref Appraisal of evidence–Law does not warrant deeper appreciation of. evidence at bail stage, rather the Court has to make tentative assessment of evidence for purpose of grant or refusal of bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1346 Offence U/Ss. 302/460/459/379 PPC–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–Bail plea has been rejected by Sessions Court with reasoning that due to use of kalashinkov, case is to be heard by Judge Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities–Contention that mere narration that kalashinkov was used during occurrence is not enough especially when kalashinkov has not been recovered–High Court is of the view that narration of fact that kalashinkov was used in occurrence from which firing was effected to steal eminence irrespective of fact that kalashinkov was not recovered during investigation–Case shall have to be heard by Special Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975–According to Rule 14 chapter 10 of High Court Rules and orders Volume III in judicial hiararchy bail application has to be filed before court of lowest grade–Petitioner has not moved special Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975 for his admission to bail and dismissal of his application by Addl. Sessions Judge would not confer upon him right to move High Court–Held: Petitioner may proceed in accordance with law before court of competent jurisdiction–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1145
13. Attempt to murder:–Evidence does not disclose actual circumstances resulting in quarrel–Medico legal report does not, prima facie, disclose that injury caused by petitioner was dangerous to life -Held: Aforesaid circumstances coupled with fact of age and profession of petitioner (student of 10th class) bring case within ambit of ‘concession of bail admissible to him–Bail allowed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (AJK) 50
14. Attitude of accused:–Accused person not surrendering himself before police after refusal of pre-arrest bail–Held: It is a settled proposition of law that an accused not surrendering himself before police after having been declined bail, not entitled to be heard–Petition, dismissed. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 28
15. Bail – Rejection of:–There is sufficient material on record which satisfies mind_petitioner had come armed with a pistol and had fired and motive is mentioned in F.I.R. against him and there is positive report of ballistic expert that five crime empties were fired from pistol which was recovered from petitioner and fact that he was arrested after a delay of twenty-three days–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 SC 1400
16. Bail after arrest–Allegations of Corruption and irregularities in F.I.R.–Corruption case and being dealt by anti-corruption department–Petitiouer is CSP Officer and Deputy Commissioner and behind bars for last five months–Investigation-is still incomplete–Other accused are still at large and investigation cannot be proceeded without their arrest–No plausible evidence has been shown by I.0 for corruption and irregularities alleged in F.I.R. for wrongful gains–There is not apprehension of petitioner to abscond or tampering with prosecution evidence–No person can be detained for an indefinite period–Earlier inquiries could not prove allegations alleged in F.I.R. but recommendation for dropping case was tendered by Assistant Director–Complainant also submitted application not to persue this case–This case is of further inquiry–Petitioner accepted PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 114 Prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to link all petitioners with occurrance–Last seen evidence is not only reliable but natural–There is no enmity between parties–Injuries on person of deceased further give a strong impression that he was subjected to carnal intercourse before lie was done to death–Mere fact that petitioners are stated to be less than 16 years of age is not established at this stage–Correct.date of birth would become clear only when entire evidence is put into junta position–Last worn clothes of deceased indicate that there were semen stains on them which speaks for a foul play–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 24 There is enough evidence to indicate that prima facie an attempt was made to commit murder of complainant and at this stage it cannot reasonably be conceived that petitioner was not liable for alleged offence–Accused has been ascribed specific role and allegations against him of serious nature–However, observation made in this petition of tentative nature and will not affect merits of case at the trial–Bail refused–Petitioner will be at liberty to move High Court again for bail after two months if directions for trial is not complied with. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 154 If an accuse person remains confined in judicial lock for more than one year in a case punishable upto 10 years, he becomes entitled to bail unless that person is shown to be hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism–Courts cannot, remain oblivious of fact that law has to take its course if delay of more than one year is caused in conclusion of trial–No one can be kept in jail for sake of punishment and no body can be condemned without. holding trial–Petitioner is statedly not previous convict–Petitioner has no previous history–He is not named in FIR–No test identification prade was conducted–State has not been able to show as to why delay was caused in submission of challan and subsequently even after submission of challan no progress whatsoever has been made by prosecution–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1366 Petitioners are behind bars since their arrest i.e. more than five months–No injury is attributed to petitioners No. 1 & 2,however, injury attributed to petitioner No. 3 is on non vital part of victim–Co-accused who are attributed similar role, already granted bail–Investigation of case has not been completed so far–Conclusion of trial after submission of challan will take considerable time–Petitioners cannot be kept in jail without trial for indefinite period–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 542
17. Bail before arrest:–Alleged occurrence is dark night occurrence and identification as alleged/shown in FIR is totally baseless and frivolous–No police official is known to petitioner–There is protracted litigation pending with villagers due to which petitioner has been falsely implicated in order to restrain petitioner to continue litigation–Case is totally false, frivolous and incorrect–Petitioner is quite innocent and that local police is adamant to arrest petitioner–If he is arrested he will be humiliated, tortured and insulted by police and as consequence thereof he will suffer irreparable loss to reputation and his liberty–Local police is causing undue harassment to petitioner with ulterior motive–No such occurrence has ever taken place–Held: There is protracted litigation within the villagers and humiliation and insult of petitioner as main cause behind alleged incident–There is no positive report against petition–Interim bail confirmed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1282 Petitioner has joined investigation–According to medical evidence placed on record two injured PWs, received one injury each and those injuries have been attributed to other accused persons in the case–Allegation against petitioner that he gave butt blow on the person of injured PWs is not borne out from medical record–Petitioner was shown to be armed with a rifle but he never used same–He is brother of principal accused–In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served if petitioner is sent to jail on some technical grounds–Bail confirmed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 387 Gambling Act, 1997, S. 5–Accused was not arrested by raided party–Receipt book and cash of Rs. 100/- were dropped by accused–Preferred interim bail before High Court–Held: Both offences are bailable–Accused is directed to appear before trial Court and submit bail bond–Petition disposed of. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 676 Principles governing grant of pre arrest bail are that applicant/accused must show that case against him was cropped up due to political wire pulling, arrest being tainted with malafide and ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment at the hands of police with intention to cause irreparable injury to reputation and liberty of a person–Such ingredients were lacking in petitioner’s case–Court, for grant of bail, has *to make tentative assessment of evidence and any elaborate sifting of evidence was not warranted by law–Filing of affidavits, by complainant and prosecution witnesses in support of pre-arrest bail application of applicant would suggest that they have been tampered/won over–Bail application has to be disposed of strictly according to law on merits keeping in view distinction between tentative assessment and actual evaluation of evidence–Appellant was, thus, not entitled to pre-arrest bail in circumstances. PLJ 2001 Cr. C. (Karachi) 153 Incident was initially entered by police in Roznamcha and injured referred to doctor–After un-explained delay of 18 days said injured appeared before police with a medical certificate–Injured made some material deviation from initial report; introduced an other accused, and shifted place of incident–Chances of applicant having been involved with ulterior motives so as to harass and humiliate him by unjustified arrest–Pre-arrest bail granted in the circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Karachi) 152 Contention that case against petitioners was false, alleged abductee was divorced by Petitioner on 19.6.2001 and she went missing, on her own, from 20.6.2001 by leaving the house of petitioner–He does not know her whereabouts and the petitioners have been involved falsely by the in-laws of petitioner because he has divorced his former wife; present wife of petitioner has been falsely involved because the petitioner contracted marriage with her against the wishes of his former wife–A grown up woman is missing from the house of Petitioner–It is alleged by the complainant that she has been done away by the petitioners with the connivance of her mother–Petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the whereabout of the abductee–It is a very serious allegation of the commission of a henious offence and so far there is no material available on the record to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners–Prearrest bail declined in the circumstances PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 642 Powers of Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975–A Special Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 has no jurisdiction to consider application moved by an accused under Section 498 Cr.P.C–Special Court has no jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail to an accused who is alleged to have committed a scheduled offence i.e. an offence contained in Schedule to Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Act, 1975–Accused, could not have been granted pre-arrest bail as was done by Special Court–As a consequence application is allowed–Bail allowed to accused is hereby cancelled. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1240 Since offences are not falling with prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. “Basic principle is bail not jail” and bail is confirmed by High Court and accused had straight away approached to High Court–Alleged offences against applicant are not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.–As held by Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1995 SC 34-37 that “Basic principle is free life not jail life”–If bail is granted by mistake by Court then there is compensation and accused can be awarded conviction and sentence, but in a case where accused is kept behind bars for years together and ultimately case results in acquittal then there is no compensation means Bird called “quid pro quo” has flown out of cage–Of late no compensation, no compensation– PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 824
18. Bail Before arrest–Offence U/S. 452/337-H(ii)/337-L(11)/34 PPC–Petitioner is named in FIR and a specific role is attributed to him and a clear motive for commission of alleged occurrence is also attributed to him–There is nothing on record to show that in fact proceedings against him are result of mala fide on part of police or complainant–In Such a situation and particularly when petitioner escaped from Court below when order was announced dismissing his pre-arrest bail petition, petitioner would have no case for pre-arrest bail to be granted to him by High Court–Investigation in such like cases should be allowed to take its usual course–Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 713
19. Bail before arrest–Pre-requisites–Police registered two cases against petitioner on same facts–In such circumstances it can easily be said that mala fide on the part of complainant party cannot be ignored–Nothing is to be recovered from petitioner and investigation has already been completed by S.P.–No doubt grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief but at the same time it is an exhaustive remedy as reputation and honour of person is involved–Hence prayer for bail before arrest is liable to be considered with due care and caution and if petitioner succeeded in making out a case before arrest by showing that his involvement can be due to mala fide and nothing is to be recovered from him, in such circumstances, bail before arrest should be granted to accused person as if he is arrested, he will suffer irreparable loss, which will never be recoverable even by his acquittal at later stage–Petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for bail before arrest–He is already on interim bail–His bail is confirmed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 424
20. Bail cancelled by Sessions Judge–Prayer for bail–Offence u/S. 489-B/420 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Recovery of counter feit currency–Allegation of–S. 420 P.P.C. is bailable–S. 489 B of PPC entails punishment for more than 10 years but evidence available on record suggests that case of petitioner is arguable because report in case has been made after a considerable delay–Petitioner accepted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 497
21. Bail declined by Courts below–Challenge to–petitioner is alleged to have caused to complainant 30/35 multiple pellet entry wounds on posterior and lateral aspect of left shoulder each 1 m.m. in size with circular shaped, bleeding and blackening—corresponding hole in shirt and; 8/10 pellet entry wounds on left side of face and chin–Held : Looking seats of fire-arm injuries on person of complainant, there are reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner has been guilty of offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years and, in addition to imprisonment for hurt caused–Leave to appeal accordingly dismissed. PLJ 1996 SC 1475 Bail application already dismissed by High Court whether second hail application on ground of opinion of I.O. maintainable when such opinion had earlier been considered–Question of–Learned single judge had expressed independent and definite opinion after going through entire Police opinion after going through entire Police record–Even if for sake of argument, it is accepted that observation was made by l.0. that it could not. be determined as to which of accused is responsible, same cannot. hold filed, because opinion of I.O. was available on file and had in fact been considered–Police opinion may he relevant to decide bail application, but same cannot be held to be binding on court—Held: Second bail application was not maintainable in circumstances–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1488
22. Bail granted at an early stage of investigation–Challenge to Respondents were granted post arrest bail shortly after their arrest, when case was still at initial stage of investigation and without any change of circumstances under which they were refused pre-arrest bail a few days earlier–Held : Respondents while facing murder charge were wrongly allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge before conclusion of investigation–Bail order was recalled with observation that it would not debar them from moving fresh bail application at an appropriate time. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1649
23. Bail granted by Judicial Magistrate–Cancelled by ASJApplication for pre-arrest before High Court–Pre-arrest bail converted into revision petition–Offence U/Ss. 337-A(i)(ii) 337-F (i)(v) 337-L (ii)/34 PPC–Cancellation of bail means curtailment of liberty of a citizen and grounds for cancellation of bail are entirely different from those of grant of bail–Superior Courts of Pakistan have time and again been laying guide lines vis-a-vis principles regarding cancellation of bail–It is a settled principle of law that nobody can be condemned unheard and bail granted to a person cannot be cancelled until and unless he has been served with a notice and he has been heard or he avoids to appear in Court wilfully–No such material is available against petitioners–Even otherwise none of offences allegedly to have been committed by petitioners falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception–learned Additional Sessions Judge has also mentioned that petitioners had been threatening first informant after their release on bail–In that case he should have directed complainant to move for cancellation of bail before learned judicial Magistrate who had granted bail and should not have taken up matter himself–As order of learned Additional Sessions Judge has been passed against settled principles of law, therefore, High Court accept this revision and set aside order. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1276
24. Bail in Murder case–Further enquiry–No overt act except ineffective rifle firing was ascribed to petitioner whereas no recovery of any crime empty of a rifle from place of occurrence–Co-accused with identical role having been opined to be innocent during investigation has been placed in column No. 2 which renders prosecution case doubtful–Petitioner in judicial lock up for 1 years–Sufficient grounds for further enquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 960
25. Bail in Nab Cases:- After the amendment in the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 the Jurisdiction of the Accountability Court for grant of bail remained ousted whereas after the omission of the words ‘including the High Court’ the High Court became vested with Jurisdiction to grant bail in National Accountability Bureau cases under Art.199 of the Constitution. Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 rel. PLD 2002 SC 546 Allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 57,82,399 by accused and was arrested by Nab-entitlement to concession of bail-Petitioner was admittedly seventy five years of age and was suffering from heart disease, diabetes and other ailments-Report issued by Punjab Institute of Cardiology indicated that he needed coronary Artery By pass grafting and the he cannot be treated in jail-Evidence against petitioner mostly was documentary in nature-No likelihood of petitioner’s abscondence was apprehended-Petitioner was directed to be released on bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. PLJ 2004 Lah. 272 National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9(a)(iii)(iv) & (vi)–Offence of corruption and corrupt practices under S. 9(a)(iii), (iv) & (vi) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 punishable under S. 10–Allegations against the accused, prima facie, arose out of the acts/transactions which were of a corporate nature–Offences as alleged essentially incorporate an element of mens rea which was missing in the present case, insofar as the allegations contained in the reference were concerned with regard to the transactions enumerated therein–Mere erroneous order or lack of jurisdiction on the part of public functionary would not amount to an offence under S. 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and it would have to be shown by the prosecution that the action by the accused was with the objective of gaining benefit or advantage for himself or for any other person–Misuse of authority vis-a-vis S. 9(a)(vi) of Ordinance meant use of authority or power in a manner contrary to law or which reflected an unreasonable departure from known precedents and customs–To establish a charge of misuse of authority two essential ingredients would have to be present, first being conscious misuse of authority and second gaining of any benefit or favour by the accused for himself or any other person–Head of the Department or Institution might some time exceed his normal administrative powers in the interest of the Institution and under some wrong impression about his authority on the basis of a practice in vogue or on account of a policy framed by his predecessors and continuance thereof without any objections more particularly when it was in the interest of smooth working of the Institution–Every such irregularity was not to be treated as misuse of authority and more particularly was not to be treated as a criminal offence–Before convicting any person the prosecution was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt, all the ingredients constituting an offence and if there was any lacuna, infirmity or doubt the same was to be resolved in favour of the accused .person–Transactions, in the present case which had been made the basis of Reference coupled with the documents on the record had not shown mens rea of the accused persons at least at present stage–High Court, in circumstances, allowed the bail application. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 949
26. Bail matter–Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979, S. 16–Petitioner is principal accused against whom husband of abductee lodged complaint–Petitioner/accused is responsible for bringing bad name to family of complainant–Bail declined in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 61
27. Bail Meaning of:–Held: Bail does not mean acquittal and it remains open for trial court to come to any conclusion on basis of evidence recorded during proceedings. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 473
28. Bail on ground of minority–Offence U/Ss. 302/324/148/149/109 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Petitioners are stated to be minors at time of commission of offence–Photocopies of their school leaving certificates would reveal that they are minors–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 203
29. Bail on ground of sickness :- Medical Board recommending proper hospitalization and medical treatment of accused by some specialist doctor – Report not showing detention in jail hospital to be hazardous or detrimental to accused’s health – Accused already under treatment of specialist doctors – Bail on ground of sickness refused in circumstances. 1988 P Cr. L J 1198 1986 S C M R 847; 1982 S C M R 975; 1978 S C M R 191 and 1980 S C M R 308 ref. Medical Ground–Accused has placed sufficient material on record to indicate that he has been suffering from unstable angina and has been under treatment of senior Cardiologist for the last two years–Treatment of said ailment is admittedly not available in Jail–He is, therefore, entitled to be released on bail on this ground–Accused-Petitioners are officials of WAPDA and there is neither any likelihood of their abscondence nor there is any chance of tampering with evidence by them as prosecution has already taken into possession requisite documents–Investigation of case is complete and accused-petitioners are no more required for investigation–Bail allowed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 780 It must be shown that ailment from which accused suffers cannot be treated in usual way and if remain untreated is likely to perilously effect faculties or is hazardous to life. PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Karachi) 175   Petitioner has a suckling child aged hardly about 14 years–Welfare of suckling child demands that child should not be made to suffer in jail for the murder allegedly committed by his mother–Mother should be in a position to look after child properly–Petitioner enlarged on bail. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 419
30. Bail on Medical Ground:- Accused claimed bail on ground that he being a sick and infirm person was entitled to grant of bail – Medical Board comprising of Medical Superintendent and other experts after examining accused had reported that accused did not suffer from any kind of infirmity or sickness which could justify accused’s release on ball – Accused was not suffering from any such kind of decision which could not at all be treated in jail or which could lead to any serious consequence on account of confinement of accused in jail – No case for grant of bail had been made out, in circumstances. 2002 MLD 859 Besides, medical report there are other documents relating to sickness of applicant–These pertain to medical history, checkups of applicant and prescriptions, at well-known hospitals–Applicant admittedly is in a seriously injured condition and is in custody since last about 9 months–Applicant needs specialized treatment which is reportedly not available inside Jail–Bail granted in the circumstances. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 895
31. Bail reasonable grounds:–A Court considering a bail application has to tentatively look to facts and circumstances of case and once it comes to conclusion that no reasonable ground exists for believing that accused has committed a non-bailable offence, it has the discretion to release the accused on bail–In order to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist or not, Court should not probe into merit of case, but restrict itself to material placed before it by prosecution to see whether some tangible evidence is available against accused which, if left unrebutted, may lead to inference of guilt–Mere accusation of non-bailable offence would not be sufficient to disentitle an accused from being bailed out–There should be reasonable grounds as distinguished from mere allegations of suspicion–However, strong the suspicion may be, it would not take the place of reasonable ground–Words `reasonable grounds’ are words of higher import and significance than the word `suspicion’–It is for prosecution to show reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed crime–If Court is not satisfied with material placed before it that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty, then Court has discretion to grant bail. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 949 Bail–Appellant was armed with sota whereas deceased died of fire-arm injury–Simple injury attributed to appellant a person of 70/75 years–According to police investigation and record, petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but did not participate in occurrence in any manner and no recovery has been effected from him–Even otherwise accused never premeditated offence and it was complainant party who had come to the land which was admittedly in possession of accused party and was in dispute-4n these circumstances, question of vicarious liability would be determined by trial Court after recording evidence–Injuries attributed to petitioner are simple in nature and question whether he shared common intention with other accused needs further probe and inquiry within purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 179
32. Bail to approver:- Accused had not been tendered any pardon legally and, therefore, order of Sessions Court refusing bail to him on this ground was not sustainable in law ‑‑‑ Co‑accused mainly responsible for the offence had been granted bail ‑‑‑ Another co‑accused who had hatched up the conspiracy and accompanied the culprits had ‑absconded‑‑‑Accused had been refused bail by Sessions Court merely on the ground of having been declared an approver by Naib Tehsildar‑‑‑Case against accused was held to be of further inquiry‑‑­ Accused was admitted to bail accordingly’. P L D 1993 Quetta 70 Accused made confessional statements as also the co‑accused which could also be considered as circumstantial evidence against him‑‑Evidentiary value of their confessional statements would be determined at the trial, therefore, no opinion need be expressed at bail stage‑‑Reasonable grounds existing for believing that accused had committed the offence with which he had been charged‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. 1989 P Cr. L J 782 Accused was named in the F.I.R-Extra-judicial confession of the complainant in his additional statement had given further details with regard to involvement of accused in the case wherein it was stated that accused had admitted his guilt before him and several other witnesses-Tentative assessment of evidence on record, prima facie showed the case against accused— Legal contract was between the Bank and its employees to discharge the trust reposed in them honestly and fairly and according to law-If accused who was employee of the Bank, was allowed to violate such trust then entire Banking system would collapse-Stringent steps were required to be taken to deal with offences of Banking-Accused was not entitled to concession of bail. PLD 2003 Kar. 417
33. Bail, grant of – Accused involved in a non-bail able offence, should not be released on bail if reasonable grounds appeared for believing that he had been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the case was covered by any of the provisions of subsection (1) of S. 497, Cr.P.C-If it appeared to the court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial that no reasonable ground existed for believing that accused had committed a non-bail able offence, but sufficient grounds were there for further inquiry into his guilt, he should be released on bail under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C. 2004 P. Cr. L. J 138 No material was available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence except the simple statements of three co‑accused recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Statement of accomplice involving co‑accused for bail purpose was not material of that strength which might disentitle the accused to the privilege of bail against whom the only material was the allegation levelled by his accomplice which required corroboration in material particulars‑‑‑More convincing material including strong circumstantial evidence corroborating the statement of the accomplice had to be present for the purpose of denying bail to accused; which was lacking in the case‑‑‑Case of accused for bail, even otherwise, was on better footing than that of co‑accused already admitted to bail by High Court and he was also entitled to bail on the ground of consistency i.e., maintaining equality of treatment amongst several accused placed in similar and identical circumstances‑‑­Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. 2000 Y L R 994 Munawar Hussain alias Bobi v. The State 1993 SCMR 785; Mumtaz Ali Shar and another v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1919; Noor Hassan v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 661; Mir Murtaza Bhutto v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1416; Shabbir‑ul‑Hessan v. The State PLD 1991 SC 898; Hyder Hussain and others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1991 FSC 139; Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 171; Federation of Pakistan and others v. Gul Hassan Khan PLD 1989 SC 633; Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shafi Muhammadi, Advocate and 3 others 1994 SCMR 932; Bhuboni Sahu v. The King AIR 1949 PC 257; Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1970 SCMR 307; Ghulam Qadir v. The State PLD 1959 SC 377; Muhammad Karim and 3 others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 1543; Abdul Qadir v. The State PLD 1956 SC 407 and PLD 1991 FSC 53 ref.
34. Bail:– Kalashinkov and Rifle 8 MM–Recovery of–Offence U/S. 13 Arms Ordinance read with section 103 Cr.P.C.–Petitioner was not an accused person when his house was raided and searched–It was alleged in F.I.R. that Police party was in search of a proclaimed offender and wanted to arrest him but it is not shown in F.I.R. whether proclaimed offender was arrested or not–It was during search of house of petitioner for arresting proclaimed offender that Kalashinkov, chargers and Rifle 8 MM were recovered–Recovery was not made in accordance with law and procedure and guilt of petitioner is yet to be established in trial–Petitioner accepted–PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Peshawar) 967 Submission of–Condition for–Trial Court while dismissing bail application giving condition that accused can move trial court afresh after submission of challan of case–Condition, laid down by Sessions Judge with regard to said accused to move afresh only after presentation of challan against them, is against law–Accused are, at liberty to move trial Court afresh if they so feel advised even before presentation of challan. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 28
35. Bail–Cancellation of:- Contention that the plea was not taken by accused/respondent in first petition which were rejected despite it was available, hence it cannot be agitated at later stage–Held: A ground for bail which was neither urged nor resolved at time of previous bail applications, could have been validly agitated by accused/respondent and trial Court rightly considered and resolved same by granting concession of bail–Bail order being not a judgment within meaning of section 369, Cr.P.C., held further, there seems to be no bar to agitate a ground which was neither urged nor resolved at time of previous bail applications–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 37 There is civil litigation between parties–None was injured during occurrence nor any empty was recovered from place of occprrence–Impugned order confirming pre-arrest bails of respondents appears to be un-exceptionable–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1581 Offence u/S. 302/34 PPC–It is a night occurrence and FIR discloses only circumstantial evidence against accused–There is a considerable delay in FIR which was lodged next day–It requires a lot of reason and logic to believe that eye witnesses examined 15 days after occurrence would be present on spot and would leave for Punjab despite death of their cousin–Co-accused is also granted bail–Appellants case is not different from all remaining accused and principle of consistency also demands equal treatment–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Peshawar) 1275 Bail granted on plea of alibi–Application for cancellation of bail–Dismissal of–Leave to appeal against–High Court examined, “Passport. P-I-A- Tickets and other documents” produced by counsel for Respondents and had reach the conclusion that plea of alibi taken by respondents was not only prima facie supported by documents available on record but was augmented by report of ASDPO–In so far as case of other respondents is concerned, role attributed to them in FIR was considered and thereafter their involvement in offence was held to require further inquiry–No ground for interference–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 SC 1626 Offence U/Ss., 10/11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Order 1979–Case has already been fixed for trial and prosecution evidence has been summoned by trial Court–Conclusion of trial is within sight–If respondents make any overt act during trial or cause unnecessary delay in its disposal, aggrieved party may move for cancellation of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1711 Medico legal report contradicting version put forth by complainant and other PWs–Keeping in view the nature of injuries on person of deceased and other PWs., it is yet to be determined whether accused/respondents shared common intention to commit murder of deceased–Held : Case requires further inquiry–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 8   Essentials–Court while enlarging accused an bail reposes confidence in him that he would not misuse the liberty which was granted to him by way of examining discretion in his favour–Accued should not betray confidence of Court and in case of betrayal of such confidence, accused person renders himself disentitled to enjoy concession of bail–Where accused was released on bail in earlier case, second case registered against him speaks about flagrant misuse of bail allowed to him–Bail granted to respondent was recalled and being present in Court he was taken into custody and committed to judicial lock up. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1706 Respondent was involved in such like criminal offences since, 1993 and onwards–Prima facie Respondent seems to be habitual offender while bail before arrest is only meant to protect innocent citizens, if they are found involved due to some mala fide intention or for ulterior motives–In present case, no such mala fide has been alleged against petitioner on police–Hence, in such circumstances, grant of bail before arrest to such an accused amounts to hamper investigation as recovery has yet to be affected–Only criteria for grant of pre-arrest bail is if accused succeeds in proving his false involvement due to mala fide intention or ulterior motive on part of complainant or police–It is well established principle that criteria for grant of bail before arrest is entirely different than that of bail after arrest–This application is accepted and bail before arrest granted to Respondent is hereby cancelled. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 636 Threats issued by the accused after his release on bail to the complainant were supported not only by the affidavits but also by the station dirty of the police station-Accused had not challenged the said affidavits by calling the complainant and other witnesses for cross-examination to deny the allegations, nor he had controverted the same by filing a counter-affidavit-Allegations leveled against the accused in the affidavits, thus, had gone unchallenged and were established-Accused had misused the concession of bail in circumstances and the same was cancelled accordingly. 2004 M L D 235 Offence u/s 354 PPC read with Section 18 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Molest of chastity of girl and attempt to Zina-bil-jabr–Offences of–Bail granted to –Cancellation of–Prayer for–This is a case of moral turpitude and merely fact that respondent No. I a boy is less than 18 years of age would not be a ground to release him on bail under first proviso of section 497 Cr.P.C.–Nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner, a minor girl of 13/14 years of age, had any enmity or illwill to charge respondent No. 1 falsely, for attempting to molest her modesty without any rhyme and reason–Petitioner has charged respondent No. 1 for physically assaulting her by her catching hold of her from her breast, throwing her on ground and then trying to commit zina-bil-Jabr–Action of respondent No. 1 would, therefore, show his design to commit Zina-biljabr–Held: He does not deserve to be released on bail. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 298  
36. Bail–Case against petitioner was for mis-appropriation of specified amount–Entire evidence collected by prosecution was based on documents which were in possession of prosecution, there was, thus, no possibility of any tampering with prosecution evidence. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1428
37. Bail-cum-surety bond–Offence U/Ss. 315, 331(1) (2) & 337-F(i) of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Conditional release on bail cum surety bond to arrange payment of amount of Diyat–Accused who was convicted and sentenced for 14 years’ R.I. and payment of specified amount of Diyat to heirs of deceased, had completed sentence of imprisonment, but remained confined in jail due to non-payment of amount of Diyat to legal heirs of deceased–Accused had prayed that he had no means to pay amount of Diyat, but if he was released on bail he could arrange payment of said amount–High Court to promote ends of justice and to provide accused opportunity to arrange payment of amount within prescribed period of 3 years, released him on bail on condition to furnish surety bond in the sum equal to amount of Diyat. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1206
38. Bail–Grant of :- Offence U/Ss. 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with Narcotic Substance Ordinance, 1996–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–Search of applicant/accused was taken by a person (Assistant Sub Inspector Police) who was not authorised under Section 19 of Control of Narcotic Substance Ordinance, 1996–Recovery is not made before mashirs who were available on spot such as Rickshaw Driver etc.–Held : Case of applicant falls under definition of further inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 691 Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13 read with Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 S. 4 & 7–Bail–Prayer for–Recovery of Kalashinikov–No notification of Federal Government regarding illicit arms was being produced and provision of S. 7 of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 was being applied with mala fide intention–Two private witnesses produced by prosecution have deposed in Court that their thumb-impressions were obtained on blank paper, therefore, in view of such circumstance, case against petitioner was of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 231 Petitioner is named in FIR though, direct, motive is not attributed to him but while deceased and principal accused were having altercation. petitioner caught hold deceased by his arms and took him in shop and there to be had a row with him–Petitioner was still holding deceased by his arms principal accused pulled out his pistol from his “Dub” and fired a shot at him in head–It is enough to say that petitioner had played a specific role in occurrence leading to murder of deceased–In such a situation petitioner has no case for bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1659 Prima facies, from medical evidence, it is clear that victim was subjected to unnatural carnal intercourse–Evidence of victim stand corroborated strongly by evidence of doctor as well as two other witnesses—Ordinarily in such cases victims do not. File false cases at the cost of their reputation and honour which is considered as a stigma remembered for long time–Evidence of victim also has been held to he sufficient for conviction in such cases. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1109 Offence U/S 380 PPC read with Section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 19797 Petitioner is involved in many cases of theft–Co-accused of petitioner is proclaimed offender–Petitioner is a hardened criminal and is involved in as many as ten cases of theft–Allowing of bail on technical ground would amount to giving premium to accused who is history sheeter–Bail dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 837 Offence U/S 380 PPC read with Section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 19797 Petitioner is involved in many cases of theft–Co-accused of petitioner is proclaimed offender–Petitioner is a hardened criminal and is involved in as many as ten cases of theft–Allowing of bail on technical ground would amount to giving premium to accused who is history sheeter–Bail dismissed.PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 837 Non-recovery of weapon of offence–Whether matter of further inquiry–Question of–FIR clearly shows that petitioner has chosen head of deceased to cause injuries by wielding sota blows carried by him–Reference to postmortem report of deceased clearly indicates that injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edge weapon whereas injury No. 4-a, b, c and d alongwith injuries Nos. 8 & 9 were caused by fire Arm–Rest all of injuries were caused with blunt weapon–Held : It will be premature to say that petitioner has case of further inquiry–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 297   Grievous injury on vital part of body of victim i.e. forehead is attributed to petitioner A–He is, therefore, not entitled to bail at this stage whereas other two petitioners are ascribed injuries which are simple and on non-vital parts of body of victim–Question of vicarious liability would remain open and could only be gone into at the time of trial–Petitioner M is a known case of hypertension and has weak muscles due to Proximal Myopathy and pneumonic consolidation of right lung–It was observed by Medical Board that he was unable to sit or stand without support–In such a situation keeping in view his advance age it can be safely said that he is sick and infirm person and as such his case would fall within proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted except petitioner A–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 853 Applicant was a peon of Judicial Magistrate and case property was stolen (surety documents)–Offence was not punishable with death life, imprisonment or ten years and co-accused arrested by police was let off–Biased view could not be taken because Court record was stolen–Bail allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1226 Accused during broad daylight had barged into house of complainant alongwith his companions armed with lethal weapons in order to cause hurt–Accused was apprehended at spot after an encounter with police–Private Mohallah persons in their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. had fully implicated accused–Record did not show any enmity between prosecution witnesses and accused–Reaosnable grounds existed to believe accused being guilty of offence covered by prohibition contained in S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.–Bail declined. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1221 Offence u/Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with 8 and 14 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1930–An accused person if charged under two different statutes, which provide different punishment then ordinary rule is that benefit of statute carrying lessor punishment is considered for purposes of grant of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Peshawar) 1277 There is no contradiction in ocular evidence qua medical evidence–Case of prosecution also stands supported by statements of eye-witnesses including an injured eye-witness during occurrence–Crime weapon (a rifle) was recovered from accused during course of investigation and same was sent to Ballistic Expert, who could not ascertain as to when said rifle was lastly fired–Court do not think that Ballistic Expert report will have the any fatal adverse effects on the case of prosecution as both medical or Expert Report would be entirely in the nature of confirmatory or explanatory of direct, or other circumstantial evidence–Held : Prima fade there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner stands connected with charges alleged against him–Bail declined. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 45 Offence u/Ss. 324 & 109 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Accused was father-in-law of victim lady who was set on fire by sprinkling kerosine oil on her person at hands of her husband–Accused was specifically named by victim in her statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.–Negative role of accused made him liable to be an accomplice and it appeared that it was with connivance of and at instigation of accused that co-accused ablazed victim–Offence being punishable with imprisonment for ten years accused did not deserve any sympathy or leniency–Bail refused. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 257 Contentions that injuries were on non-vital parts of body, that intention to kill was lacking, that motive was not disclosed in F.I.R. and that no offence under S. 324, P.P.C., was made out had already been considered by High Court in order whereby previous bail application of accused was dismissed and same could not be decided afresh–Delay per se in lodging report was no ground for grant of bail–Detention of accused in jail for last six months did not entitle him to bail as statutory period in such cases was one year–Non-mention of name of assailant in column of history in medico-legal certificate was of no importance as Medico-legal Officer was not an eye-witness of occurrence–Non-appearance of injured witness for re-X-Ray examination and non-repetition of the fire by accused being matters requiring deeper appreciation of evidence could not be evaluated at bail stage–Opinion of State Counsel was not binding on Court which was required to adjudicate matter in accordance with law with good conscience–Bail dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1163 Petitioner being woman her case is covered by proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C. and no prosecutor has been appointed by Federal Government, therefore, no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in sight–Petitioner admitted to bail PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 349   Offence under Ss. 337-A(i)/337-F(ii)/34 PPC–Contention of accused was that case against him was false and he had been involved in case in background of enmity as disclosed in F.I.R.–Accused further contended that it was a case of three versions which required adjudication; no specific part was assigned to him and that it was a case of general allegation–F.I.R. had revealed that only `Lathis’ were used in occurrence and no automatic or semi-automatic weapon of any common pattern was used in commission of crime–Nothing incriminating had been secured from possession of accused–Offence alleged against accused was not punishable, beyond seven years and was out of prohibition contained in S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.–Co-accused had been granted bail and case of accused was identical to case of co-accused–Accused was entitled to grant of bail in .view of principle of consistency–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1095 As per record elders of parties had Intervened and were making efforts to settle differences between accused and complainant party–Complainant party had no objection if bail was granted to accused as it would facilitate resolution of long-dawn dispute between parties–Complainant and two injured persons present in Court had made a statement under their signature duly supported by affidavit in which they had confirmed statement of accused and had stated that possibility existed for resolving controversy–State Counsel also stated that granting of bail will be in aid of bringing gap between parties–Accused admitted to bail. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 936   Offences under section 324/353/188/186/148/ 149/109/PPC–Petitioners are accused of offences most of which are bailable–In respect of offences under sections 188 and 324 PPC, there do not exist reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners have committed offences–In fact, no tangible evidence has been offered which if left unrebutted may lead to inference of guilt–Held : Supreme Court convert these petitions into appeals, allow them, set aside impugned order of High Court and grant bail to petitioners–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 SC Occurrence took place on 5.2.1993 whereas identification parade was held on 22.8.1994–Although statutory period of two years has elapsed but trial has not been concluded–Held : Role against petitioners is not indistinguishable  from role attributed to co–accused who has already been granted bail–Petitioners admitted to bail in circumstances. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 134   Petition for leave to appeal Art. 185(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973–Petitioner found in possession of 1500 grams of heroin, arrested U/S. 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979–High Court rejected bail due to bar of S. 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–Bail sought on plea of protracted trial and alleged recovery being false–Held: Leave is not granted for recovery of heroin involved is huge and statutory period of bail not yet over. PLJ 2000 SC 545 Recovery of 100 grams heroin and 200 grams charas–Allegation of–Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Arts. 3 & 4–Seizure memo. as well as F.I.R. did not indicate drawing of representative sample–Report of Chemical Examiner though was in respect of 10 grams charas and 1 gram heroin, but that by itself did not connect samples with stuff allegedly seized from accused–It is yet to be established during trial that stuff got examined chemically was in fact drawn from material allegedly seized from accused–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 919 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order read with Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, & 9–Registration of case against petitioner under Section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and under S. 9, Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997–Bail was refused to petitioner on the ground that quantity of contraband narcotics recovered from petitioner exceeded for more than one kilogram–Petitioner claimed that A.S.I could not register case under Section 6 to 9 of Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997–Such claim of petitioner was in terms of S. 21 of the Act which indicated that no official below the rank of Sub-Inspector could register such case–Petitioner has, thus, made out a case for bail in terms of S. 497 Cr.P.C. in as much as there was no bar in S. 497 Cr.P.C. against bail in cases registered under Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979–Petitioner was thus, entitled to bail which was granted to him on terms and conditions set out by High Court as to sureties. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 368   Petitioner is entitled to sail with co-accused in the same heat through at traction of rule of consistency as he (co-accused) was admitted to bail by Additional Sessions Judge, that offence u/S. 381-A/411 PPC do not fall within prohibitory clause; that re very of car stands effected and that inspite of submission of challan trial has not been started–Rule of consistency has to be followed by subordinate Court and if it has not been followed, High court is not bound by order passed in favour of co-accused–Allegation against accused is that he alongwith his co-accused removed/lifted ear from road-side which fact fortunately came to notice of owner of car who alongwith his companion and police followed petitioner/accused and he was over-powered—It means petitioner was arrested at the spot alongwith stolen ear-Held : It is an exceptional case wherein rule that an accused involved in a case not falling within prohibitory clause should not be admitted to bail—Held further: Petitioner was earlier convicted and chance of repetition cannot be ruled out—Bail refused. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1197 Caused damage to property and took away articles–Allegation of–It is now well settled principle of law that if otherwise applicant is found entitled to be released on bail, this facility shall not be withheld merely because of absconsion–It has not been shown that applicant has been declared as proclaimed offender–Unless, such action is taken, abscondance could not be said to come in way of grant of bail to applicant if he is otherwise found to such concession–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1463 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Female co-accused during proceedings of suit for restitution of conjugal rights tiled by accused had described herself to he legally wedded wife of accused–Genuineness or otherwise of Nikahnama could not, be commented upon at bail stage lest it might prejudice case of either party–Case against accused being of two versions, he was entitled to hail–He was in jail for last ten months and his trial had not yet started–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1560
39. Bail–Grant or refusal of–Appraisal of evidence–Law does not warrant deeper appreciation of. evidence at bail stage, rather the Court has to make tentative assessment of evidence for purpose of grant or refusal of bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1346
40. Bail–In case of death or life imprisonment–Wisdom behind–Bail is not to be refused merely on allegation that a person has committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless grounds appear to exist to disclose his complicity–Wisdom behind it is that if accused in circumstances of given case is finally acquitted, how could he be compensated for his detention during trial, therefore law allows concession of bail to such a persons. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 15
41. Bail--In exceptional cases which do not fall within prohibitory clause, accused is not entitled to be admitted to bail, cases of moral turpitude can safely be added to that category. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 61
42. Bail–Order of–An Order passed on a bail application one way or other is not a judgment within meaning of Sec. 369 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 37 Interference by Supreme Court–Basis for–Held: It is settled that Supreme Court does not interfere in judicial exercise of a discretion in bail matter unless shown that discretion exercised by trial Court was either perverse or violative of principles governing bail matter. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 37
43. Bail–Prayer for–Offence u/S. 302/324/ 148/149/186/506/ Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Contention that charge has already been framed and trial of petitioners has already commenced and granting bail to petitioner will give a wrong signal to learned trial Court–It is settled law that in case calling for further inquiry into guilt of an accused person bail is to be granted to such an accused person as of right and not by way of grace or concession–Bail is sometimes refused to an accused person in a criminal case if trial of such a case has commenced but such refusal proceeds on principle of practice and proprietary–Whenever a question of propriety is confronted with a question to right later must prevail–Contention repelled and bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 183
44. Bail–Rejection of— Offence U/S. 302, 324, 148 and 149 PPC–There is sufficient material on record which satisfies mind_ petitioner had come armed with a pistol and had fired and motive is mentioned in F.I.R. against him and there is positive report of ballistic expert that five crime empties were fired from pistol which was recovered from petitioner and fact that he was arrested after a delay of twenty-three days–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 SC 1400
45. Bar to grant of bail – Prima facie no case punishable with death was made out against the accused – Effect – Where evidence in possession of the prosecution did not, prima facie, make out such case, bar contained in S. 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was not applicable. 2000 P.Cr. R 988
46. Benefit of doubt:- It is well settled principle that for the purposes of bail law is not to be stretched in favour of prosecution–Even at bail stage benefit of doubt must go to accused. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 349 In our country there is tendency to involve innocent persons with actual culprit–Therefore, benefit of reasonable doubt about manner in which offence was committed, identity of accused, his presence on spot, but allegedly played by him and above all his vicarious liability etc. would invariably go to him even at bail stage–Whenever reasonable doubt arises regarding participation of accused person in commission of crime, lie shall be entitled to concession of bail not as matter of grace, but as matter of right. because there is wide difference between jail life and free life–Held : Bail cannot he withheld as punishment. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Peshawar) 802
47. Benefit under proviso third to Section 497 Cr.P.C.–, Benefit under proviso third wherely accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right if statutory period mentioned either in clause (a) or clause (b) has expired and trial has not been concluded–This right can be defeated only if state or complainant shows that delay in trial is attributed to accused person concerned–Once it is shown above right is forfeited–If prisoner has been seeking adjournments from time to time on one pretext or other and thus contributes to delay in conclusion of trial, he is acting at his own peril and does not deserve concession afforded to him under proviso three to Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Petition dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 230  
48. Cancellation of bail: — Bail granted to one accused, but refused to other co-accused having same role–Petitions for cancellation of bail as well as for grant of hail to co-accused–According to Zimni both accused have been declared innocent–Case of both accused is that of further inquiry–Contents of FIR clearly show that both of them were placed under similar circumstances–Court below did not act on correct principle of law i.e. rule of consistancy–Complainant party could not succeed to make a good ground which could justify cancellation of bail already granted to respondent No. 1, whereas bail petition of co-accused having same role accepted–Orders accordingly. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1278 Though affidavits being a weak evidence should not be readily accepted at bail stage but each case has to be decided on its own facts–Unfortunate deceased was last seen by two witnesses but both of them did not support prosecution version–Likewise, extra-judicial confession being a weak type of evidence had become still weaker after witnesses before whom such confession was made tendered their affidavits disowning prosecution version–Recovery of churri became a matter of further enquiry after recovery witnesses resiled from prosecution version through their affidavits–Under such circumstances, discretion exercised by lower Court does not appear to be arbitrary or fanciful–No convincing grounds for re-calling orders whereby respondents were admitted to bails–Petitions dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 13 Offence U/Ss. 10 and 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979–Bail can be allowed only where no ground exists for believing that accused had committed a non-bailable offence and there were sufficient grounds for “further enquiry” into their guilt—Seen from any angle facts and circumstances of this case do not entitle respondents to concession of bail as granting bails to accused in cases of heinous nature will definitely add to agony of victims of high-handedness–Offence committed by accused in fact amounts to gang rape and after addition of sub-section (4) in Section 10 death punishment to rapists has been prescribed–Application accepted and bails allowed to respondents recalled. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 10 Name of Respondent does not figure in first information report–Her name was introduced as an accused at a belated stage through supplementary statement, which is hardly given any weight under law–According to learned counsel deceased was caught hold by Respondent alongwith others, whereas co-accused fired at the waist of deceased by means of a gun–This allegation if viewed in light of contents of postmortem report does not seem to be wholly true–Nobody could dare to catch hold of man, when co-accused is likely to make a shot at victim by a gun–No one would take risk of being hit by discharge of a fire-arm–This allegation is doubtful–Admittedly, Respondent is a women and her case is fully covered under Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. which deals which persons under sixteen years of age, women and all those who are sick or infirm–Conscientious judicial discretion exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge is governed by law–It does not call for any interference. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 778 No doubt, under proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. it is within discretion of court to release accused on bail under age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such offence, but there should be very strong reasons to believe that nature of disease is such, which requires special treatment and care which is not possible in jail and further detention in jail would endanger life of accused–Held: Case of accused-respondent i.e. Angina and hypertension are not covered under proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. in its true perspective–Application for bail cancellation accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 57 Record showed that plea of alibi raised by Respondents was not supported by any evidence–Held : Such plea requiring to be specifically proved through evidence at trial could not be considered for purpose of grant of bail–Bail order was re-called suo motu. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1649 Suo moto power–Pre-requisite for–before granting bail, Court must be satisfied on basis of opinion of Police or material placed before it that there was reasonable grounds to believe that accused was not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life or ten years–Bail order passed by Additional Sessions Judge without forming such opinion was recalled by High Court in exercise of its suo moto powers. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1649 Once bail is granted by a competent court, then discretion so exercised cannot be interfered by High Court unless bail is found to have been grunted arbitrarily or fancifully by ignoring material considerations for grant or refusal of bail–Bail cannot be cancelled as a matter of course nor there is any legal compulsion to cancel bail in cases which are punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lahore) 254 Age of abductee 20 years–Nikah & validity of registered Nikahnama not disputed–Case of further inquiry–Order of granting bail (lid not suffer from any patent illegality nor found perverse or arbitrary–Cancellation refused. 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1624 Circumstances for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1301 Compromise between the parties manifestly was the outcome of the pressure and influence exerted by the accused councilor who was being supported by the feudal lords of the area and he had even made it impossible for the senior supervisory police officer of the District despite direction of high court to produce him in court and he at his own pleasure had opted to move high Court for pre-arrest bail-Even otherwise, offences under Ss. 379, 506, Para. Second & 163, P.P.C were not compoundable and the local police while registering the case on the complaint of the Doctor had not with mala fide intention mentioned the said sections of the P.P.C. – None of the basis conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail was available in favour of accused, rather the whole district administration was playing in his hands-Most important criterion in this regard was the satisfaction of the Court that the case was or not fit for bail-Accused had even slapped on the face of the complainant Doctor on his refusal to give the required medical Certificate-person like the accused must be dealt with sternly in order to make the country people feel that they were living in such country where the law had edge over everything – Pre-arrest bail was refused to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Lah. 403 Reluctance of the complainant to swear on the Holy Qur’an about the bona fides of the prosecution case was not enough to declare the accused innocent in the case, as neither the oath proceedings were applicable to criminal cases in view of Art. 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, nor the sanctity of the Holy Qur’an could be brought in oath and such procedure adopted by investigating Officer could not he countenanced while disposing of the bail application—Injury on the left temporal region of the skull of the injured prosecution witness could neither be self-suffered nor caused by a friendly hand and his non-appearance before the Medical Board, therefore, could not make the prosecution case doubtful Delay in lodging the F.I.R. had been explained—Accused did not” apprehend unnecessary harassment at the hands of the police which was the cardinal principle for the grant of extra-ordinary relief of bail before arrest—Question of further inquiry falling under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. was no ground for admission of accused to pre-arrest bail under S.498, Cr.P.C.—Making of five successive applications for pre-arrest bail by accused in the case and dismissal thereof was a strong circumstance against him for his prima facie involvement in the matter—Evidence of motive, ocular evidence and medical evidence collected by the prosecution against the accused were vet to he produced during the trial—Pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was cancelled in circumstances.   1999 P Cr. L J 2090 Mst. Bashiran Bibi v, Nisar Ahmad and others PLD 1990 SC 83 and Hussain Ahmad alias Madni Shah v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ. 130 ref. Respondents/accused being under custody for a continuous period of about two years and ten months without conclusion of trial were allowed hail–Challenge to–Respondents/accused were granted bail after a lapse of a period of one year and 10 months from their arrest and during their detention only three witnesses could be examined in more than one year and since then trial is at the same stage–Respondents have no contribution in delay–Earlier delay on their part lost efficacy to be considered a ground for cancellation of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1422 Offence u/S. 302/34 PPC-In cases involving capital punishments bail should not be granted to accused where strong reasonable grounds exist. Very arrest of accused in chase on the spot alongwith crime weapon is sufficient and strong ground to connect him with commission of offence and as such he was not entitled to concession of bail allowed on very flimsy grounds—Held Prima facie case exists against respondent which disentitles him to concession of bail—Bail granted is recalled_ PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1185 One glaring aspect cannot be ignored even at this stage irrespective of plea of alibi-Distance between violin and assailants is six paces as per site-plan yet injuries sustained by deceased bore charring marks–Discrepancy-between FIR site-plan and post mortem report is settled at trial respondent may remain on bail-It is not fit case where interference should be done under S. 497(5) C,r. P.C. which otherwise is discretionary and not mandatory PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Peshawar)   Offence u/S. 3 and 4 f Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) order, 1979–It was contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent was apprehended on prior information and a huge quantity of heroin powder was recovered from the car being driven by him–He admitted before Customs authority that the car belonged to one and that he had paid Rs. 25,000/- for taking the car to a place–No doubt statement f accused/respondent is not relevant at the trial but it could be taken into consideration while disposing f an application for bail–Even otherwise huge quantity f heroin powder having been recovered from the car driven by respondent makes out a prima-facie case against him which dis-entitles him to concession of bail–Learned trial Judge took into consideration all muterial available before him in refusing to extend concession f bail in respondent’s favour–Approach of learned High Court that it was a case f further inquiry and that respondent is a Government servant leaving little scope for abscondance in a serious offence f present nature, is erroneous–Accordingly, Supreme Court convert this petition into appeal and allow same–Appeal is accepted, judgment of learned High Court is set aside and that f learned Special Judge is restored. PLJ 1997 SC 983   Contention, accused are named in F.I.R. –Bail is rarely granted in theft cases particularly at investigation stage–Offences are punishable upto 7 years and more–Hehd: Inordinate delay of one month and 18 days in loading FIR not properly explained–No direct evidence connecting accused applicant with alleged offences–Back ground of previous enmity in between parties–Not a single ingredient as enunciated by superior courts for cancellation of bait attracted to facts of case–No allegation of non-cooperation of accused with Investigating Agency on record–There is no hard and fast rule that bail before arrest cannot be granted in theft cases–Each case is to be decided on its own merits–Application being meritless dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Karachi) 387   Accused/respondents have remained in lock up as under trial approximately one year and eight months when they were released on bail by learned High Court-Though till their release they had not completed statutory period of two years which could entitled them to grant of bail but leave to appeal is declined against order of learned High Court on ground that in spite of respondents released on their trial so far has not concluded–Leave to appeal declined. PLJ 1997 SC 1528 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance, 1979, S. 14–Cancellation of Bail–Contention, giant of bail amounted to interference in investigation otherwise police would have recovered stolen documents–Held :–Absolutely no evidence against accused for having stolen documents–Plea that grant of bail stilled investigation has no force–No clear allegation that documents, if any, stolen we in possession of accused, what is nature of documents—Whether those were valuable securities and what is their value, such details are lacking–Not a fit case for interference in circumstances–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Karachi) 147 -No ground of enmity with raiding party or private witness was alleged–There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent might have been falsely implicated–Prima facie, there is strong evidence against respondent that huge quantity of heroin powder has been recovered from possession of respondent–Case was fresh one and no witness was yet examined in trial court–Respondent was granted bail on flimsy grounds–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 779 Bail granted on statutory ground–Offence U/Ss. 302/34–Contention that learned A.S. Judge, has mis-directed himself in interpreting third proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C. in as much as it is continuous detention for over two years which entitles an accused person to the right of bail and not otherwise–Respondent once remained in jail for one year and ten months and then for one year again, as such, he failed to fulfil conditions laid down by law–There is direct allegation against respondent of firing on innocent. woman and his shot proved to be fatal–Broken period of detention in jail does not appear to be helpful to him because legislature has clearly intended to taken into consideration an uninterrupted and unbroken period of two years for such a concession–Bail allowed to respondent is recalled–Bail cancelled. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1152 In a case of broad day light incident witnessed by three persons, names of assailants being promptly mentioned in F.I.R., and corroboration by medical evidence, was not at all fit for exercise of discretion of bail in a case of capital punishment–Even no case of further enquiry was made out–Ordinarily bail should not be allowed in murder cases especially when allegations in F.I.R. if left unrebutted would render applicant to sentence of death or life imprisonment–Held : Trial Court acted illegally and in violation of settled principles for grant of bail–Bail cancelled. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 748 Application for cancellation of bails–Site plan is in contradiction of with version given in FIR–Accused K .was released by SHO under section 169 Cr.P.C. on personal bond, which in absence of a report of police officer U/S 173 Cr.P.C. or taking cognizance by court under section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.(‘. could not be interfered with–However accused/respondent S is on different footing–He was released on bail by Judicial Magistrate ignoring the fact that instant offence being scheduled one falls within exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court and hence, his impugned order is patently illegal–Mere allegation of use of Kalashinkov in FIR takes out case from ordinary forum to forum of Special Courts and neither Magistrate nor Session Judge could take cognizance of bail matters–Application against accused is accepted on the ground of jurisdiction–Application partly-accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1252 Cancellation of bail–Shirt of complainant lady had been torn from a very small place of its front side and S. 354-A, P.P.C., prima facie, was not attracted–It cannot be denied that there are injuries on the person of lady but it is a case of simple and pure beating, and at the most, fall under section 354 PPC–Order granting bail to accused was not capricious and was supported by cogent reasons–Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 844 Learned Sessions Judge has seemingly exercised his discretion beyond scope of his jurisdiction as it has not been carefully balanced and weighed in scale of justice and requirement of law–Case of respondents in any ease does not deserve to be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail on merits and also within ambit of principles laid down by Superior Courts for grant of pre arrest bail–Respondents have failed to show any malafide on the part of prosecution for their false implication–Held : No case for bail before arrest is made out–Order of learned Sessions Judge, set aside. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1074 F.I.R. contained only a general allegation against accused for having chalked out a plan about occurrence without disclosing place where such plan was made and without showing reason about presence of prosecution witnesses there–Prima facie said allegation did not appeal to reason–Accused had neither misused concession of bad nor there was any apprehension–Accused had been rightly allowed pre arrest bail by the Sessions Court. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 996 Prayer for–Bail application rejected by the Addl. Session Judge but after 20 days same Judge granted bail to respondent.–Held: Despite knowledge of dismissal of previous bail petition by him and in absence of any new ground same learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted bail in violation of principles and law laid down by the superior courts in matters relating to grant of bail–Bail cancelled. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1257 PLD 1986 SC 173 ref. Bail granted on plea of alibi–Application for cancellation of bail–Dismissal of–Leave to appeal against–High Court examined, “Passport. P-I-A- Tickets and other documents” produced by counsel for Respondents and had reach the conclusion that plea of alibi taken by respondents was not only prima facie supported by documents available on record but was augmented by report of ASDPO–In so far as case of other respondents is concerned, role attributed to them in FIR was considered and thereafter their involvement in offence was held to require further inquiry–No ground for interference–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 SC 1626 Allegations, attempt to commit sodomy with 12 year kid after administration of drug–Anal swabs found stained with semen–Poison not detected in Gastric Lavage–Record showing reasonable grounds do exist to believe that petitioner had attempted to commit sodomy after intoxicating him–Bail granted is recalled. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1687 Respondents were though armed with fire-arms weapons, but it is not alleged that they caused any injury to deceased–Persons to whom fire-shot injuries were attributed in causing death of two deceased are not on bail–Held: When no specific allegation of causing any injury has been levelled against respondents they were entitled to bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 941 There is eye witness account sufficiently connecting accused with commission of offence–There is recovery of weapon of offence at the pointation of accused–There is inquiry report of Magistrate Ist class under S. 202; reports of two Investigating Police Officers holding accused guilty as against one report in his favour and there is a medico legal report supporting prosecution version–In the absence of any plausible defence version so far brought on record, prima facie accused being found guilty is not entitled to concession of bail in view of prohibitory clause of S. 497 and particularly when trial is yet to commence. PLJ 1996 .Cr.C. (Lahore) 1505 Without judging evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession, it can safely be observed that unless admissibility of alleged joint extra-judicial confession is determined, identification of respondents as culprits of occurrence on basis of evidence of tracker and medical is not possible–Evidence of tracker could simply lead investigating officer to house of respondents but it cannot be helpful to identify culprits–Similarly, medical evidence can trace nature of weapon used in occurrence and injuries sustained by victim, but it cannot locate accused–Recovery of blood-stained sickle from accused in absence of any other evidence to connect him with commission of offence, may not be sufficient proof of guilt–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1 No doubt, no injury had been attributed to accused/respondent but as per FIR., they caught hold of deceased and pushed him towards their houses at first instance and thereafter when co-accused fired at. deceased and injured Min. they dragged deceased towards their houses and thereafter, facilitated the commission of murder—Petitioners were accompanied by co-accused when were duly armed with kalashinkoves and when they fired at deceased and injured him. even then accused/ respondents dragged body of deceased who was injured then-All this shows that accused/respondents have fully participated in the commission of offence by sharing common intention and have formed unlawful assembly for a common object that is to kill deceased-For the purpose of bail cancellation petition reasonable grounds do exist to connect accused/ respondents with commission of crime— Bail cancelled. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1177 Circumstances showing that second marriage was contracted with consent of father of lady–Couple residing as husband and wife having a suckling child–Unimaginable that a father will marry his daughter during subsistence of earlier marriage—F.I.R. lodged after one year and seven months without cogent reasons–Whether petitioner divorced lady or not is a question of further inquiry which shall be established at trial–Cancellation of bail declined in circumstances–Petition dismissed in amine. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lahore) 254 Order of–Cancellation of–Prayer for–True that an order under criminal law cannot be revoked even under section 369 Cr.P.C. but powers under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. cannot be curtailed or limited by jurisdictional requirement–Suspension of sentence under section 426 Cr.P.C. is not right but is a matter of grace–Held: Respondents have misused concession of suspension of sentence and are not entitled to concession–Impugned order withdrawn. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1659 Sessions Judge had not mentioned any maid fides on the part of complainant or police or intended arrest being result of some intrigue or to harass and ridicule accused with ulterior motive to disgrace them through process of being handcuffed–Order of Sessions Judge being without proper application of mind and unjustified–Pre-arrest bail cancelled. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Peshawar) 887
49. Case of counter version–Offence u/S. 304 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Petitioner is directly charged in promptly lodged F.I.R. for having fired at his co-villager with his pistol on account of which injured was hit and fell on ground–Medical evidence and statements of P.Ws. fully support prosecution version–It needs no reiteration that in cases of counter version rule followed is that if one party is granted bail other too is entitled to bail, but that rule would be applicable in cases of genuine counter version–Mere filing of cross-case against each other cannot be a ground for grant of bail as held in 1992 SCMR 501 and 1995 SCMR 860, unless an element of genuineness is there–Courts below have properly exercised discretion in disallowing bail to petitioner–Bail refused. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 601
50. Case under trial–Admitted position is that deceased was not seen by PWs in company of petitioner as such before occurrence rather their evidence was to the effect that accused and deceased were seen by them at a distance of 500/600 yards from each other–In such cases through tentative assessment of evidence, apparent correctness of allegation is ascertained as statements of persons recorded by Police are not subjected to cross examination and, therefore, cannot be considered as sacrosanct for purpose of decision of bail application–Keeping in view above principle, evidence against petitioner being traceable on record pertaining to presence of petitioner near place of occurrence and disclosure of intention to kill alongwith matching of crime empty with licensed pistol of petitioner cannot be considered as positive proof of guilt of petitioner unless same is put to test of cross examination and doubts and dents arising in it are removed–Thus before determining guilt of petitioner at trial, benefit of doubts for purpose of bail will necessarily he given to petitioner and concession of bail in such circumstances cannot be refused merely for reason that case is under trial–As per post-mortem report, death probably occurred at some time before 8.00 p.m. when it was not yet dark but witnesses despite hearing firing report remained unconcerned and have not attracted to scene, therefore, taking notice of attending circumstances, possibility of false implication of petitioner being not ruled out, there would be reasonable ground leaving towards plea of innocence, which makes room for further inquiry into guilty of petitioner–Held: There are no reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is responsible for murder of deceased–Petition accepted and petitioner granted bail. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 654
51. Cases not falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.—Court in cases not falling within prohibitory clause can refuse bail if after making tentative assessment of evidence it finds a prima facie case having been made out against accused. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1069
52. Co-accused granted bail–Long abscondence of applicant irrelevant–No suggesting evidence on record that who caused fatal injury to deceased and in that event identity of main accused becomes debatable–No proceedings initiated against applicant U/S. 37/88 Cr.P.C., he cannot be dubbed as absconder–Prima facie case for grant of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1317
53. Commencement of a trial:- Commencement of a trial poses no insurmountable hurdle in way of bail provided accused person succeeds in making out a case of further inquiry into his guilt within meanings of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 133
54. Conditional bail bond– Contention that High Court is not competent to impose condition on hail bonds which are required to be furnished by petitioner for her ..well settled that accused person can be released on bail on the strength of surety to he provided by his/her—Held: Petitioner shall be released on furnishing surety of her choice–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 SC 1444
55. Conditions precedent for grant of bail before arrest-Basic conditions are, the accused apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives or mala fides on the part of the Authorities or other influential persons or there are some peculiar features of the case, e.g., the accused enjoys good name and his arrest may humiliate him in public eyes, which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power. PLD 2003 Lah. 403 Contention that appellant had already served out substantive sentence of imprisonment and, therefore, he is entitled to be released from Jail–Held: Case have already been sent to a Court of competent jurisdiction, it would be more appropriate if this matter is agitated before Court of competent jurisdiction . PLJ 2001 SC 785
56. Confession of co-accused—Confession of co-accused was admissible under Art. 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and could be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence provided same was proved against the maker of confession—Stage of proof of confession, no doubt would come at the trial, but bail application was to be decided on the basis of record available i.e. F.I.R., statements of witnesses, the confession, if any, or any other circumstantial evidence including motive—While deciding the bail application, the truthfulness or voluntariness of the confessor was not tested, but the fact that an accused was charged in the confession by itself was material which could be looked into alongwith other surrounding circumstances. 1998 M L D 1307
57. Consideration for Pre-arrest and Post-arrest:- At time of deciding an application under Section 497, Cr.P.C., Court has to attentively consider nature of accusation, role assigned to a person and evidence in hand of prosecution in support thereof–There is no bar for Courts to entertain application u/S. 497, Cr.P.C. and grant bail to an accused on any ground and at any stage of case, but while exercising such power, Court must not overlook judicious considerations. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1649 1997 SCMR 2161; 1999 PCr. LJ 218 ref
58. Consideration in Bail :- All caused persons including petitioner, allegedly have been attributed specific role–None of witnesses has supported plea of alibi adopted by petitioner–FIR lodged promptly–Strong motive attributed to petitioner-A minor aged 4½ years was brutally murdered, indiscriminate firing was made–Prosecution witnesses have fully supported prosecution version There is nothing on record except statements of political figures in favour of petitioner–Held: An accused is not to be released on bail, if then appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years–Petitioner dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1721
59. Conspiracy of murder:- No effective role is attributed to petitioner in causing death–Both witnesses have given one version that a few days prior to occurrence they saw accused sitting under ‘Berry’ tree and conspiring murder of deceased as he had become nuisance for them and that he had insulted their women folk–There is no mention of motive part of prosecution story in afore referred statements–There is no explanation as to why both these witnesses remained mum for a couple of days and did not inform complainant or police about conspiracy of murder–Even otherwise, prima facie, it is repellent to common sense that accused would conspire at an open place and within hearing of witnesses–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 262
60. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973 Art. 185 (3)–Leave to appeal–Grant of–Broad day light incident witnessed by three persons–Names of assailants promptly mentioned in F.I.R.–Corroborating medical evidence–Held: High Court rightly cancelled bail granted by trial court–Leave to appeal not granted. PLJ 1996 SC 649
61. Contest between question of propriety and question of right–Which must prevail–Question of–Petitioners were granted post-arrest bail, but remained fugitive from law for a considerable period–After re-arrest, they applied for bail, which request was refused–Held: As a rule of propriety, concession of bail is ordinarily not extended to a person, who has already misused it–As observed earlier, case against accused persons called for further inquiry into their guilt–Held further. In a case calling for further inquiry into guilt of accused person, bail is granted to such person as a matter of right and not by way of grace or concession–Refusal of concession of bail to accused, persons being fugitive from law only by way of propriety was Held illegal on the ground that whenever a question of propriety is confronted with question of right, then later must prevail–Bailed granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1278
62. Contradictory Statements:- Bail of four accused/petitioner–Grant of–Prayer for–Offence U/S. 10 & 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Two statements of abductee U/S. 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. are self contradictory on various points–Names of two accused do not appear either in F.I.R. or abductee’s statement U/S. 161 Cr. P.C. – Abductee had mentioned their names for the first time after about two months of her statement u/S 161 Cr. P.C.–So case of two accused/petitioners requires further inquiry and they are entitled to concession of bail–Third accused’s name has consistently appeared in F.I.R. in abductee’s statement u/S 161 Cr. P.C. and in her statement u/S 164 Cr. P.C.–Allegation of Zina is attributed to him–He, therefore, is not entitled to concession of bail as there is sufficient material on record to connect him with crime charged against him–Fourth accused has been admitted to bail by ASJ on the basis that abductee had given an affidavit before ASJ to the effect that she had no objection if bail was granted to fourth accused–As bail was not granted to fourth accused on merits so there is no question of rule of consistency–A pertinent question arises if bail could be granted to an accused involved in a serious case merely on the statement of complainant or a witness–Counsel of complainant has submitted that he is moving an application for cancellation of bail of fourth accused–Order accordingly. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 666 [P. 668] A & B
63. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–Art. 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979–Recovery of 500 grams charas–According to FIR charas was recovered from petitioners and three others, there are reasonable ground to believe that petitioner indulged in business of drug paddling–Trial has already commenced–Keeping in view all facts, bail refused. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1099 Where recovered drug phychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeded one hundred grams but not one kilogram (1000 grams), offence would entail punishment up to seven years’ R.I. only–accused was allowed bail in circumstances–(Majority view) PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1107 Accused had, neither before the Sessions Court nor in the bail application, disowned his relationship with the co‑accused who was driving the car and his official gun‑man present in the car who were apprehended at the spot and huge quantity of heroin and Charas was recovered from them‑‑‑Said co‑accused in their statements recorded under 5.161, Cr.P.C. immediately after their arrest and subsequently under S.164, Cr.P.C. had not only confessed their guilt but categorically implicated the accused to have asked them to transport the contraband material, which statements were admissible in evidence under S.43 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984‑‑‑Car used for the alleged offence bore an M.N.A. plate which was a stolen one and was purchased, by the accused and was being used with a fake registration number‑‑‑Accused was Member of National Assembly and also a Member of the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board and prima facie no reason for his false implication was available‑‑‑Filing of belated affidavits exonerating the accused by the witnesses could not make his case of further inquiry unless police investigation was established to be mala fide‑‑‑Accused, prima facie, was connected with the commission of the offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C: ‑‑Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. 1996 M L D 1 Prohibition on grant of bail Section 51 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 has not only excluded the applicability of Ss. 496 & 497, Cr. P.C but has also excluded any class of people from availing bail if charged under S. 9© of the Said Act. 2000 P.Cr.L.J 945
64. Counter-version-Rule to be followed was that if one party was granted bail, the other party was also entitled to the same relief, but that rule would be applicable in cases of genuine counter-version. 2004 P. Cr. L. J 127
65. Criminal breach of trust–Application for bail Against–In order to prove an offence under Section 409 PPC, it is necessary to prove that that accused is a public servant, or a banker, merchant or agent, (ii) he had been entrusted with property or with dominion over properly in that capacity and that )66 he dishonestly misappropriated coverted to his own use that property or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to he discharged–There was no entrustment of property to petitioner in present case–Held : Addition of section 409 PPC in order to bring the case of petitioners within prohibition contained In sub section (i) of section 497 Cr. P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C (Lahore) 1158
66. Cross firing with result both sides suffered injuries–Investigation conducted by Senior Superintendent of Police who opined complainant party opened attack–Matter re-investigated by Crime Branch–According to investigation agencies complainant party opened attack–Reasonable grounds, that accused are not guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, exist–A case of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 383
67. Customs Act, Allegations that applicant an Employee of Airport Security Force, played an instrumental role in getting clear at customs counter a foreign lady passenger from whom 7 K.G. Heroin was allegedly recovered–Held: Name of applicant is mentioned in F.I.R.–During investigation his involvemeot is conspicuously transpired–Prima facia applicant has acted in furtherance of common intention–Plea that applicant acted under orders of his superiors is not tenable as he was supposed to carry out legal orders–Interim challan has been submitted in court–Evidence is yet to be recorded–Possibility of tempering with prosecution evidence, after getting bail, cannot be ruled out–Bail declined. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Kar-) 323   Allegation that accused journeyed from Karachi to Islamabad and travelled back with other co-accused from Islamabad to Karachi–During flight entered into toilet but could not get gold already concealed therein by co-accused–Gold recovered from toilet of air craft by custom officials–Applicant not member of that set of accused persons who travelled from Gulf to Pakistan with smuggled gold–Whether accused was guilty of any offence attracted by any provision of Customs Act 1969–Question of—Held Gold had not been put in toilet by present applicant while travelling from Islamabad to Karachi as it was already in toilets before aircraft started its journey as domestic flight from Islamabad to Karachi–If Customs Officer had waited till landing of aircraft to start his action against these smugglers, it would have been possible to arrest present applicant with some quantity of gold–In absence of any recovery of smuggled gold from applicant and without any specific role played by him in this trip, it may not be possible for this court to reach any definite conclusion regarding offence committed by applicant with reference to section 178 of Customs Act or Section 202 PPC. It is only trial court which can decide this point with certainty, and that too, after recording evidence in this case about exact nature of offence committed by accused–These realities have made out a case of further enquiry within meaning of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. -Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C- (Karachi) 120
68. Deceased last seen with petitioner–Weapon of offence recovered at pointation of petitioner–Allegations of–Held: F.I.R. absolutely silent that deceased was last seen in company of petitioner—No reasonable ground exist to believe that’ petitioner is connected with commission of offence–Petitioner, a lady is behind bars for last 3½ months–Case of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1696
69. Deeper appreciation :- Deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible at bail stage, but a tentative assessment of the evidence cold be made in order to see whether prima facie case had been made out against the accused or not. PLD 2003 Kar. 417
70. Delay : — Delay of about two hours in lodging the F.I.R in circumstances of the case was neither inordinate nor unreasonable-Specific role had been assigned to accused that he alongwith co-accused who was duty armed entered in the milk shop of the complainant, demanded money at the point of pistol by putting him in fear of death and co-accused actually caused blow on the head of eh complainant with the butt of his pistol-Accused was named in The F.I.R and his identity being cone of the robbers, prima facie, stood established – No reasonable grounds, thus, exited to believe that the accused had not committed the alleged offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C – Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Kar. 243 Offence under section 10(3) and 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–In abduction cases where honour of family is involved people in country do not run to police and try to first exhaust all their sources towards locating whereabouts of abductees–Hence point of delay has no weight–Bail not allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 855 Offence U/S 3/4 of Prohibition Order–Bail-Grant of–Prayer for–Petitioner was caught red handed and 63 K. G. of heroin was recovered–Case surely falls under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P. C.-Petitioner is behind bars for more than 22 months and as such, earned a right to be released on bail, is not tenable–A ground of delay for grant of bail has been mentioned but in its support, no proof has been placed on record–Law officer states that entire prosecution evidence has been recorded and statement of accused is to be recorded but case file was lying in High Court–Refused–Leave to appeal. PLJ 1996 SC 311
71. Description of petitioner not in consonance with F.I.R. as to age–Nothing has been recovered at the instance of petitioner–Non-apprehension of co-accused no ground to deprive petitioner of legal discretion of court–Prima facie case of further inquiry entitling petitioner to be admitted to bait–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Lahore) 406
72. Dispute was over the marriage of a girl–FIR was lodged with 4 days delay without any plausible explanation–Injured was medically examination after 24 hours–Held : All this made it a case of further inquiry falling u/Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1525
73. Double murder:— According to FIR, petitioners were present at place of occurrence and fired ineffective shots–During investigation, it was found that they were detained in judicial lock-up in Azad Kashmir at time of occurrence–Allegations of conspiracy are not mentioned in FIR–According to report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. they have been challaned on charge of conspiracy–Held: A case for grant of bail to petitioners is made out–Bail allowed.PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lahore) 433
74. Emigration Ordinance : — Accused had allegedly received Rs. 5,00,000 from two persons on the pretext of sending them abroad and providing them employment there— Both the said persons were sent to different countries by the accused who eventually were left stranded in Indonesia at the mercy of circumstances and ultimately were arrested and they had to undergo a lat of sufferings of different types— Sufficient material in the form of passports of the said persons and the statements of witnesses was available on record to involve the accused in the commission of non-bailable offences which had disentitled him to claim bail as a mater of right— Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Quetta 22.
75. Entitlement to bail before arrest–Essentials–High Curt while considering bail application would not embark upon meticulous appreciation of evidence–Where, however, from tentative assessment of evidence inference can be drawn that no reasonable grounds appear to have been made out against petitioner further inquiry into guilt was required then concession of bail would be allowed to him–Concession of bail would also be extended to petitioner, where Court, after tentative assessment, comes to conclusion that ultimately merits of case would not warrant conviction–There was no legal or moral compulsion to keep accused person in detention merely on allegation that he had committed specified offence–Petitioner was prima facie, guest of Prime Minister and accommodation was provided to him by the Prime Minister–Matter yet requires further inquiry, whether petitioner himself obtained any reservation in rest house in question, and the bill is to be paid by him or the Prime Minister–Interim bail allowed to petitioner was confirmed in circumstances. PLJ 2001 AJK 50
76. Evidence–Assessment of–Court has to make tentative assessment of evidence brought by prosecution as incriminating material or by accused in defence and other surrounding circumstances as well and, does not in terms contain any restriction on courts power to assess evidentiary value of material placed before it–However, Court has to refrain, directly or indirectly, from giving any conclusive finding on question of guilt or innocence of accused. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 28
77. Exoneration of the accused: — Statement of the two prosecution witnesses under S. 164, Cr.P.C exonerating the accused had been recorded after about six months of the incident which did not appear to be truthful or genuine-Pressures on the prosecution witnesses was not an uncommon phenomenon-Two other eye-witnesses including the complainant still remained to be examined in the case-Accused had been assigned specific role of committing the murders-Parties were directed to get their compromise application decided by the Trial Court which was pending there and appeared to be in the final stage-Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Kar. 298
78. Extra-judicial confession:- Only evidence against petitioner was his extra-judicial confession made after approximately 2½ months of occurrence–Witnesses deposed that father of accused had actually nade extra-judicial confession which was confirmed by accused–Such a statement could not, prima facie, be taken as a confessional statement–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 857
79. I.R. lodged by S.H.O. without naming assailants and witnesses–Except version of S.H.O. nothing on file to show that prosecution witness (simply injured) was unconscious and was unable to lodge F.I.R.–Cross-case stand already registered–Accused of cross-case declared proclaimed offenders, so it was difficult to determine who was aggressor–Held: Admittedly, it is un-seen occurrence–A mysterious case–Prima facie, reasonable ground do not exist to believe that petitioner connected with commission of crime–A case of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1687
80. First Proviso–Where necessary, bail can be refused in cases covered by first proviso to section 497(1) Cr. P.C. PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Karachi) 175 Trial started, one prosecution witness examined—Conclusion of trial within sight–Held: No proper comment on merits to release petitioner on bail–Trial court directed to conclude case within one month–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 355
81. Foreigners Act 1946 read with Ordinance II of 1996 Foreigners (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996–Bail–Applicant in jail since more than a year and trial not conduced–Held: ‘ Witnesses in the case are police officials, prima facie, no possibility of transferring with prosecution evidence–Albeit amendment in Foreigners Act vide Ordinance II of 1996 envisages accused shall not be released on bail, inherent powers of High Court u/S. 561 Cr.P.C. are not effected–Accused is facing trial before ADM who cannot award sentence upto 10 year–He is in custody since more than a year–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C- (Karachi) 201
82. Fresh ground – Ground available to accused at time of first application, not taken or not pressed could not be considered as fresh ground in any subsequent bail application. 1988 P Cr. L J 1198 Izhar Haider v. Zahid Hussain and others 1981 S C M R 847 and State v. Zubair and 4 others P L D 1986 SC 173 ref.
83. Fugitive from law:- Bail is sometimes refused to an accused person who has remained a fugitive from law but that is done only on a principle of propriety—It goes without saying that whenever a question of propriety, is confronted with a question of right latter must prevail PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 184
84. Further enquiry:- Main accused had been acquitted of the charge and guilt of accused who had been implicated on account of his vicarious liability, would call for further enquiry-Abscondence of accused by itself would not be sufficient to withhold concession of bail, particularly when in similar circumstances co-accused had been granted bail-Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. PLD 2003 Kar. 416 Only role ascribed to petitioners is that he helped the principal accused to remove the dead-body of victim to nearby grave yard–There is no allegation that he was either present at the time of murder of deceased or had participated in any manner to take her life, therefore, it, will become a case of further inquiry, particularly, when there is only allegation that he helped the principal accused to remove dead-body. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1426 Five unknown persons on the show of force of weapons had allegedly snatched a pick-up-Complainant had identified the accused in the identification test held after nine days of his arrest, which according to counsel for the accused on account of such delay could not form the basis of attribution of the crime to him-Sessions court, while dismissing the bail application, had observed that the accused had been arrested on suspicion, but had been identified in the identification parade although there were no independent witnesses— Case against accused required further inquiry in circumstances and he was admitted to bail accordingly. 2004 M L D 413   Allegations that 8 accused including present petitioner armed with kalashinkovs and guns, indulged in in-effective firing in dark night–Accused claimed to be identified in light of tractor–Held: No allegation that any of accused was armed with rifle but 38 empties of rifle alongwith empties of kalashinkovs and guns were secured from scene of occurrence–150 empties of kilashinkov, 38 of rifle and 95 of guns have been recovered but not a single injury has been caused to complainant or eye-witnesses–A fit case for further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 924   Case U/S. 324 PPC–Injured PW has been avoiding to appear before Medical Board for his reexamination–Injury was simple in nature and as such case of petitioner is one of further inquiry–Petitioner is neither previous convict nor hardened criminal and is no longer required by police and he has been in judicial custody for over six months–Petitioner accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1636 Petitioner is named in FIR–He was armed with 12-bore gun and had made firing at one of deceased alongwith co-accused–Investigating Officer challenged petitioner to face trial–Held : High Court found no extenuating ground to enlarge petitioners on bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1255 Bail–Trespassing hours and started to touch breasts and to catch hold of string of shalwar of complainant—Allegation of–No allegation that petitioner put off his loin cloth and succeeded in removing shalwar of complainant–Petitioner did not act in manner which could project that he practically attempted to commit Zina by force–Matter being question of further inquiry–Petitioner admitted to bail. PLJ 1997 Cr-C. (Lahore) 106 Contention that assailant did not intend to cause death of injured–Admittedly neither petitioner/accused nor his co-accused repeated fire–Injuries sustained by injured are not located on any vital pmt of his body–Case requires further inquiry–Offence U/s 337-F(i) PPC is bailable–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 669 Contention that accused lost control over his senses when he saw his sister in a compromising position and under sudden provocation killed her sister and her paramour–Held Plea of grave and sudden provocation in such circumstances is available in Quranic injunctions contained in verse 34 of Surah-un-Nisa–“. A husband; father; and, the brothers are supposed to guard life and honour of females, who are inmates of house and when anyone of them finds a trespasser, committing “Zino” with a woman of his family, then murder by him whilst deprived of self-control will not amount, to “Qatl-i-amd” liable to “Qisas because deceased in such a case is not a “Masoom-ud-dum”– there being reasonable grounds to believe that. petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life do not, seem to exist–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1640 Bail is sought on the ground that an offence u/s 13 of Arms Ordinance of 1965 is punishable with 2 years R. I. and is, therefore, bailable–Offence u/s 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 as amended from time to time is punishable with death or imprisonment for life alongwith forfeiture of property whether movable or immovable and minimum sentence is 7 years–Therefore, an offence under Arms Ordinance 1965 as amended from time to time falls within prohibition contained in sub-section(1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1329 Offence U/s 20 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975–Since offence under which applicant is charged with is not a scheduled offence, it is evident. that Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act has no jurisdiction to proceed with trial of accused–Trial Court is, therefore, directed to return charge-sheet for presentation to court having jurisdiction–Applicant is admitted to interim bail with a direction to appear before Court having jurisdiction–Order accordingly.PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1191 Further inquiry was required to hold that reasonable grounds, tending to connect accused with commission of offence, appeared—Presence of accused at place of occurrence—Whether natural or planned : Yet to be determined—No overt act attributed to accused members of one family—Bail allowed by trial Court not interfered with in revision. P L J 1980 Cr. C. ( AJK) 429 Neither recoveries made out nor dead body-Identification as well as statement of a P.W. doubtful-Bail allowed in view of such special circumstances. P L J 1931 Cr. C. (Sukkur) 567 injury on vital part of body-Petitioner overpowered by prosecution witness-Material on record not sufficient to warrant conclusion that petitioner intended to cause death of injured P.W.-Sufficient grounds for further inquiry-Petitioner in lock up for 4 months _Bail cannot be refused as punishment -Ss. 307/326, Penal Code (1860). P L J 1981 Cr. C. (Rawalpindi) 271 Non bailable warrants of arrest issued by Assistant Commissioner of a district of another Province-High Court.allowed interim anticipatory bail to enable petitioner to approach competent Court to get remedy in accordance with law. P L J 1981 Cr. C. (Lahore) 311 Notice of cancellation of bail—Case not of zina but that of an attempt—Ss. 9/18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)—Discretion in granting bail by lower Court not inter fered with—Case not governed by bar contained in S. 497, Criminal P. C. (1898). P L J 1980 Cr. C. (Kar) 321 Abductee had appeared before Judicial Magistrate and had sworn affidavit that she had not been abducted and did not make any complaint against accused–Nikah of alleged abductee was performed and she affixed her thumb-impression on it in presence of Nikah Khawan and witnesses–Abductee remained in police custody for. about two days before recording her statement which cast a serious doubt about genuineness and voluntariness of her statement–As per record abductee was consenting party and commission of zina was yet to be established by prosecution when evidence would be recorded–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted in the circumstances.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 908   Offence u/S. 395/458/412/109 PPC–It has been noticed that no recovery was affected from petitioner–Petitioner was not one of accused who committed dacoity–Statements of PWs relating to extra judicial confession were recorded more than five months after occurrence–PWs reported matter to police after many days of alleged confession made before them–Two PWs statements were recorded more than a year and they related to confession of offence by petitioner before police is not admissible in evidence–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 895 No sealed parcel of alleged recovered weapon was made at spot–It has also been conceded that recovered weapon has not been sent to any Arms expert to ascertain whether indeed it was fire-arm weapon or not–Offence is punishable with imprisonment for 14 years–In these circumstances, such laxity on part of police cannot be tolerated–Although recovery has been effected from public place yet none from public was associated in recovery proceedings nor any explanation has been given as to why provisions of Section 103 Cr.P.C. were violated–Allegation against petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within purview of Subsection 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1181 Offence u/Ss. 10(2) 13 and 14 of Offence of Zino. (Enforcement of Htidood) Ordinance, 1979–There is no eye-witness of occurrence except complainant who too . has been challaned?–There is no medical evidence in support of complainant’s version- She is stated to ue fugitive to law -There is a delay of 8 days in lodging FIR–Question of petitioner’s guilt would require further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1278 Name of applicant/accused does not appear in FIR–Not a single witness has implicated him in commission of offence–Alleged incident occurred on 26.7.2000–Applicant/accused was arrested on 16.10.2000- Only allegation against him is that he during course of investigation led policy party and produced rifle on 23.10.2000–In their frther statements dated 11.8.2000 complainant and prosecution witnesses have stated before police that they came to know that applicant/accused might have committed offence but no source of information has been disclosed- Peculiar facts and circumstances made it a case of further enquiry as contemplated by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., as there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that accused is guilty of offence covered by prohibitory clause–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C.. (Karachi) 452 Admitteldy, no specific injury was attributed to petitioners, they were declared innocent by police and they were not connected with motive–They were behind the bar for the last one and a half year–In absence afore-referred’ circumstances question of petitioner’s guilt would require further inquiry–Resultantly, petition is allowed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 663 Supplementary statement was got recorded after a week of registration of criminal case, wherein petitioner was suspected as an accused by complainant–During investigation, no evidence has been collected worth consideration to connect him with alleged crime–So only evidence is of extra judicial confession of his co-accused, but this cannot be used against petitioner–He has been declared innocent by DSP in his investigation, therefore, case of petitioner has been made out of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1236 FIR has been lodged with a delay of 14 hours without any explanation and ascribing roles to accused persons in such like FIR is not of any importance–Injuries on person of complainant were examined after such a long time and non-appearance of complainant before Medical Board who had called him thrice prima facie makes out a case of further inquiry–Petitioner’s case does not fall within exception hence he is admitted to bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1176 Offence u/S. 13/14/18 Offence of Zina (Enforcmeent of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–It is settled law that where one accused is granted bail then other accused is placed in similar and identical circumstances–Applicant/ accused should be put at par with co-accused and as per rule of consistency applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail–In view of grounds urged by learned counsel for applicant/accused coupled with no objection extended by learned State counsel, there is only allegation that applicant/accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse at time of raid but there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record–This is a case of further enquiry as envisaged in proviso (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., hence applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1164 Every hypothetical question which may creep into mind and which could be resolved only after recording evidence and during trial would not make case that of further inquiry–Case of further inquiry would only be made out when data collected by prosecution is not sufficient to provide reasonable grounds for believing that a prima facie case existed against petitioner. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 886 F.I.R in respect of incident stood registered against one person and accused persons in investigation had been found innocent and report of their discharge from the case was prepared, but Illaqa Magistrate did not agree with that report-Accused having been declared innocent by police and report for their discharge from case was prepared, person against whom F.I.R. was registered, had been arrested in the case, and amount involved having been recovered from said person, case of accused had become one of further inquiry into their guilt covering under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C-Accused were previous, non-convicts-Bail, was granted to accused, in circumstances. 2004 M L D 225 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F-(i), 337-F-(ii)/34–Petitioner claiming bail on the ground that injury ‘attributed to him on the person of deceased was with blunt weapon and that he was not vicariously liable for the death of deceased–Contents of F.I.R. indicated that petitioner caused blunt weapon injuries to deceased and to prosecution witnesses while firearm injuries caused to deceased and witnesses were at the hands of co-accused–Petitioner, thus, prima facie, was not responsible for having facilitated commission of murder of deceased and the role attributed to him at present stage could not make him vacariously liable for causing death of deceased–Petitioner’s case, thus, falls under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. of further inquiry–Bail granted– PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1681 Allegation of running brothal house–Petitioner lady was not apprehended at the spot as she had allegedly managed to escape–Boy and girl who were narrated in the F.I.R. were trying to commit zina had already been admitted to bail–Petitioner, being a women was also entitled to concession of bail on said ground as well–Even otherwise, case of petitioner was clearly one of further enquiry–No useful purpose can be served by keeping petitioner in judicial lockup for an indefinite period–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1334 No motive has been alleged against petitioner–Petitioner also has not caused any injury to deceased or PWs–Only allegation against him is that of ineffective firing but no empty was recovered from place of occurrence–Allegedly petitioner led to recovery of 30 bore pistol but in circumstances that cannot be used as incriminating evidence against petitioner–Resultantly, allegation levelled against petitioner needs further probe and Offence U/S. 12 Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with S. 377/342 PPC–Matter was reported to police after four months and 11 days, without any plausible explanation–Occurrence has allegedly taken place on night in between 8/9.9.2000 and case registered on 19.1.2001–Alleged victim was examined by Medical Officer, DIIQ Hospital, on 18.9.2000–Medical examination of victim belied all allegations levelled in FIR–It was perhaps for that reason no case was registered against petitioner–In these circumstances, allegation against petitioner needs further probe and inquiry and fall within ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C: -Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 32 Role assigned to applicant is that they have fired on complainant party and it has not been controverted by learned counsel for complainant that complainant or any witness has sustained injury at the hands of applicants–Moreover, deceased has sustained injury at the hands of those accused who are not before High Court for grant of bail–Question of vicarious liability is to be thrashed out at the time of trial as reported in 1987 S.C.M.R. 1996–Case of applicants is falling within purview of Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. with regard to intention of killing to complainant party and it can be thrashed out at time of trial–Besides enmity is admitted by complainant in F.I.R. and it is double edged weapon which cuts both ways–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 812 Although petitioner was shown to be armed with a hatchet yet he did not cause any injury to deceased–Nothing has been recovered from him during investigation and according to report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted before Court petitioner has been placed in Column No. 2–Opinion of police may not be binding upon Court but same as relevant and can be considered at bail stage specially where there is not contrary opinion–Allegation against petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and bail cannot be denied to petitioner on ground of propriety when petitioner qualifies himself for his release on bail under statute–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 897 Offence u/S. 302/34 PPC–Story of confession cropped up after 4 months of occurrence–Statements of PW’s also recorded after 4 months of occurrence–Police recovered a dutch-wire from petitioner but post-mortem reports had shown that a rope was found hanging around the neck of deceased–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 632 FIR had been lodged with a delay of about twenty hours–Section 302, PPC has already been deleted and same has been substituted by Section 316, PPC-In supplementary challan submitted by local police before trial Court petitioner’s name has been placed in Column No. 2 thereof–In case Diary DSP/SDPO had declared petitioner to be innocent–Petitioner was aged about 13½ years at time of incident in question which fact is borne out from an extract from register of births maintained by Municipal Committee–Thus, case of petitioner attracts provisions of first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908 Fact remains that mere presence of petitioner with 7 MM rifle at the spot has been shown in F.I.R.–He has been ascribed no overt act in commission of crime alleged. Although second petitioner has been ascribed role of lalkara but he did not cause any injury despite fact that he allegedly was armed with .30 bore pistal–Admittedly nothing has been recovered from them–So question of their sharing common intention with their co-accused in attempt of murder of deceased and causing injury needs further inquiry and as such, their case is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 513 Petitioner aged 59 years–He had not participated in ocurrence–Only a computer was recovered from him during investigation–I.O. states that petitioner is not involved in any other case–He was an aged man and was behind bars for the last more than a month–Trial of case is likely to take considerable long period–Question whether offence under Section 412 PPC or 411 PPC is attracted in present case shall only be determined after recording evidence by trial Court–It a case of further inquiry qua involvement of petitioner–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1308 Petitioner is not named in FIR–He was implicated on statement of co-accused whose Identity Card was found at place of occurrence–Petitioner has not fired at complainant–Worth of Statement of co-accused is to be evaluated during trial–Case of petitioner falls within purview of sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. i.e. of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 35 Petitioner was not named in FIR–He only made extra judicial confession that he was merely present with his co-accused who had fired at deceased–He did commit any overt act qua deceased–Thus, question of his vicarious liability will be considered at time of trial–His case, thus covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt–He was behind bars and stated to be a previous non-convict–Bail granted in the circumstances. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 625 Petitioners and their co-accused were not named in F.I.R.–They were also not put to any identification test–No incriminating article was recovered from them–Only evidence against them was statement recorded of three persons u/S. 161 Cr.P.C.–Their statements show that they had not seen petitioners doing away with deceased at relevant time–If they on the basic of their statements alone could be held for alleged offence or not, requires further inquiry under sub-section (2) of S. 497 Cr.P.C.–Petitioners are behind bar and stated to be previous non-convict–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 839 Only act of ineffective firing was attributed to accused in F.I.R-No crime weapon was recovered from accused and accused was not connected with motive-Accused was no more required by the police for further investigation-Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail.2004 MLD 2 Commission of fraud attributed to petitioner–Entitlement to bail after arrest–Petitioner was neither witness nor attorney in any of alleged transactions of fraud–Petitioner was 65 years of age and his case does not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C.—Question of petitioner’s guilt requires further inquiry–Petitioner was, thus, entitled to bail– PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1682 No specific injury of any of the deceased person was ascribed to petitioner–General role of firing alongwith his co-accused at deceased persons had been ascribed to him–Admittedly, no recovery, whatsoever, had been effected from him–In view of these facts and particularly finding of innocence recorded by three different police officers in his favour, his case was covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt–He is stated to be behind bars and previous non-convict–In these circumstances, case for his enlargement on bail has been made out–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 634 There is no force in contention of complainant that deceased lady and her husband were forced by accused party to board wagon in order to kill them and that deceased was given beating in moving vehicle –Presence of ladies of either side in vehicle indicated that they were most probably going to local M.P.A for resolution of their controversy Association of M.P.A in investigation to ascertain whether or not he had given appointment to parties, would have clarified matter but none of investigating agencies associated him with investigation — Held: Deceased lady and her husband suffered injuries as a result of their drop out and not as a result of beating given by accused with hatchet, butts of guns and Dandas — Bail allowed. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Lahore) 163 There was no justification to dismiss bail plea of petitioner-accused–Inquiry report prepared by D.S.P. is enough to makg out that ASI/complainant transgressed his authority and that involvement of petitioner-accused shall have to be viewed with caution- Place of occurrence is a habited place where presence of general public even at 10.30 p.m. in April is expected–No person from public was joined in recovery proceedings and rather no effort in matter was made- Recovery memo was attested by two police constables and in view of aforesaid material it can safely be expressed that involvement of petitioner is a question of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1999 Cr.C. (Lahore) 5 During investigation two Investigating Officers found. petitioner innocent–Fact that arm of petitioner is not in working condition, is also established from police record–During investigating no recovery was effected from petitioner–Question as to whether petitioner could participate in occurrence can only be determined by trial Court after proper assessment of prosecution evidence–Prima facie, circumstances of this case are sufficient to bring case of petitioner within ambit of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1383 Offence u/S. 11/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979–No eye witness–FIR, lodged – after one month and seven days–Lady in her statement before First Class Magistrate had not stated that she has been abducted by any body or any illicit intercourse was committed with her by accused–She did not implicate accused in her statement on 30.8.1999 and 20.9.1999 but on 27.9.1999 when her 164, Cr.P.C. statement was recorded and she for first time implicated accused–There is no evidence on record connecting accused with commission of offence except belated 164 Cr.P.C. statements of victim lady whose statements cannot be believed in toto as there are three 164 Cr.P.C. statement of lady on ecord–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 377 Three un-identified culprits due to some unknown enmity fired at deceased just on coming near to him who sustained injuries and. fell down from motor cycle and thereafter said culprits decamped immediately from scene of offence–Present applicant were not nominated in F.I.R.–Their subsequent involvement by witnesses in their respective statements U/S. 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. brings case of applicant within ambit of further enquiry–Applicant and co-accused were arrested on 26.7.1999 at 7.30 a.m. as suspects–P.Ws. were called immediately thereafter at police station and applicants were shown to. them who saw and identified them to be culprits—Identification test of applicant and co accused was arranged subsequently–It appears that applicant, was shown to witnesses prior to holding of identification test–Grant of bail to two co accused persons is an additional ground which finds favour for grant of bail to applicant–Case against applicant requires further enquiry as contemplated U/S. 497(2), Cr.P.C–Bail allowed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 332 Offence u/Section 302–Petitioner has been shown to be armed with Klashinkov at relevant time–However, as a result of three successive investigation nothing had been recovered from him and he has been found innocent–As many as 10 empties have been recovered from place of occurrence, out of which 9 have been found to be wedded with Klashinkoves recovered at instance of his co-accused–Admittedly name of petitioner has been placed in Column No. 2 which fact itself corroborates contention of petitioner that prosecution has not been able to collecte sufficient evidence to connect him with commission of offence even till submission of challan and as such his case requires further probe–Case of petitioner squarely falls within ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.., as such petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 2 lacs with two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of trial Court. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1403 Offence U/Ss. 302/109 Penal Code, 1860–Regarding question of allegation of conspiracy or instigation there is no sound evidence because had there been any evidence deceased would have been informed in this regard quite earlier, this assessment is tentative in nature–Petitioners did not cause any injury to deceased–They were not present at the spot; they are not connected with motive however, it is correct that they are close relativies of main accused therefore, there is possibility of their false involvement and being so the facts of case call for further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 257 Learned counsel for State, has not opposed bail concession to applicant as it is yet to be proved by trial Court about complicity of documents involved in case–Keeping in view dicta laid down in 1995 SCMR 170 referred by learned counsel for applicant/accused coupled with no objection extended by learned counsel for State as well as circumstances available on record, case requires further enquiry, as contemplated under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 659 Offence U/Ss. 5, 11 & 16 Offience of Zino Enforcement of (Hudood) Ordinance, 1979—Second Nikah allegedly performed by petitioners has no validity and sanctity in eye of law and. as such they have committed offence charged with–Validity of earlier Nikah allegedly performed between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, is sub judice before family Court–Unless and until validity or otherwise of earlier Nikah is not decided by family Court, case of petitioners becomes of further enquiry and they deserve to be enlarged on bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1423 Offences under Sections 324, 302, 34 P.P.C.–Murderous assault–Cross version filed by petitioner–Charge framed by trial Court–No role was attributed to petitioner in FI.R. except ineffective aerial firing–One fatal injury was attributed to co-accused in abscontia–Held : that circumstances of case allowed further enquiry and provisions of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. were applicable–Petition allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Quetta) 590 Apart from question of minority, petitioners were entitled to bail on ground that at time of occurrence they were empty handed; there was no previous enmity between parties and occurrence happened all of a sudden after an exchange of abuses and record was silent regarding assault proving fatal–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 464 Case of–Investigation indicated that maximum accusation against applicant was that he had demanded specified amount from a person for providing employment, however, it was not known whether employment was within the country or abroad and whether payment in question was actually made–Applicant in such background had been successful in making out his case of further inquiry–Applicant was, thus, ordered to be released subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of specified amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1007 Mis-appropriation of specified amount–Actual responsibility could not be determined and matter required further probe and inquiry–Amount involved was although sufficiently large but such fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail when investigation of case was not complete and commencement of trial was likely to take considerable time–Petitioner was in jail for more than three months–Petitioner was granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of specified amount PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1428 -Petitioner who was allegedly armed with a sota did not cause any injury on person of PW 1 or to any other PW–There is only one injury on person of PW 1 and that was found to be a fire-arm injury–In one of investigation, petitioner was found to be innocent–In second investigation, I.O. has concluded that petitioner was present at place of occurrence but no overt act has been attributed to him–No recovery has been effected from him–Allegation against petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within purview of sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1209 Petitioner as about 15/16 year of age at time of occurrence–Allegedly he alongwith Second petitioner and others armed with hatchet collectively caused injuries to injured witnesses–None of them caused. any injury to deceased–According to medico-legal report there was no sharp-edged weapon injury on person of any of injured witnesses–In these circumstances, participation of these petitioners also require further injury–Petitioner was empty hand at time of occurrence and ,no overt act is attributed to him, in FIR–All petitioners are behind bars for last ten months and they are no more required for purpose of investigation–In this view of matter, finding case of petitioners to be one of further inquiry, entitling them to concession of bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1202 Case of–Offence u/S. 302/337-H(ii), 148/149 and 34 PPC—It is not clear whether applicant/accused was involved in the incident–R is also not clear whether statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of persons who have claimed that applicant/accused was attending wedding is correct or statements of those persons who have confirmed whatever has been stated in FIR was correct–This can only be certified after recording of evidence–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1303 Case appears on border line whether offence would fall under Section 302 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance or 319 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance–If version of prosecution is believed that brick was hit on head of deceased by applicant, prosecution is gagged on question that same has not been repeated by applicant but version of complainant is even belied by police while submitting challan in which police have categorically submitted that during playing by children in mohallah there was scuffle and deceased fell down and sustained injury of bricks which were lying on ground it is yet to be thrashed out by trial Court as to whether deceased died due to injury of brick lying on ground or whether it was thrown by present applicants–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 856 Petitioner is resident of same locality, where occurrence took place–He was known to prosecution witnesses–They would have never omitted to mention his name in first information report, if he was seen by them at spot and had identified him–Evidence in question has been procured after many days of occurrence–If assailants could not be identified while still being in mosque, then investigating agency was under legal obligation to have organized a test identification parade, but it has not been so done–General features and complexion of persons seen in mosque were also not furnished to police while recording first information report or even thereafter–Witness of Waj Takkar evidence should have narrated all facts before investigating officer perceived through their senses–There are certain family disputes pending in between two sides–Possibility of petitioner’s involvement on basis of guess, gossip, rumours or imagination, cannot be ruled out altogether–Worth and value of whole lot of evidence is to be assessed by Trial Court after its due weighment–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 480 Offence u/S. 324 Q and D Ordinance read with Ss. 147, 148 & 149 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–There are counter cases–Injured are from both sides and it is yet to be seen as to which party is aggressor–Case of applicant in view of counter cases is falling within purview of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly applicant is admitted to bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 915 Offence U/s. 489-D of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Injurieis present on body of accused could not be explained by Police Officer as to how he had suffered same–Said injuries could not be said to have been already present on person of accused at time of his arrest, otherwise they would have been mentioned in report–Expert opinion was essential to show whether material recovered from accused could be used in counterfeiting currency notes which was not obtained by prosecution–Case of accused therefore, needed further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1095 Offence under Section 302/34 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Accused was not named in the F.I.R. and some other persons were nominated therein as suspected culprits–No eye-witness of murder was available–Prosecution case rested on last seen evidence, but identification of accused was not admittedly indicated from police file–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1137 Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/364/201/109–Extra judicial confession made by petitioner is weak kind of evidence–Besides that, it is established on record that petitioner indulged only in conspiracy and abetting offence of murder done by his co-accused–Held: Law laid down in Federation of Pakistan vs. Gul Hasan Khan and Maratab Ali vs. State, case becomes of further inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 135 National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9(a)(iii)(iv) & (vi)–Offence of corruption and corrupt practices under S. 9(a)(iii), (iv) & (vi) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 punishable under S. 10–Allegations against the accused, prima facie, arose out of the acts/transactions which were of a corporate nature–Offences as alleged essentially incorporate an element of mens rea which was missing in the present case, insofar as the allegations contained in the reference were concerned with regard to the transactions enumerated therein–Mere erroneous order or lack of jurisdiction on the part of public functionary would not amount to an offence under S. 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and it would have to be shown by the prosecution that the action by the accused was with the objective of gaining benefit or advantage for himself or for any other person–Misuse of authority vis-a-vis S. 9(a)(vi) of Ordinance meant use of authority or power in a manner contrary to law or which reflected an unreasonable departure from known precedents and customs–To establish a charge of misuse of authority two essential ingredients would have to be present, first being conscious misuse of authority and second gaining of any benefit or favour by the accused for himself or any other person–Head of the Department or Institution might some time exceed his normal administrative powers in the interest of the Institution and under some wrong impression about his authority on the basis of a practice in vogue or on account of a policy framed by his predecessors and continuance thereof without any objections more particularly when it was in the interest of smooth working of the Institution–Every such irregularity was not to be treated as misuse of authority and more particularly was not to be treated as a criminal offence–Before convicting any person the prosecution was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt, all the ingredients constituting an offence and if there was any lacuna, infirmity or doubt the same was to be resolved in favour of the accused .person–Transactions, in the present case which had been made the basis of Reference coupled with the documents on the record had not shown mens rea of the accused persons at least at present stage–High Court, in circumstances, allowed the bail application. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 949 Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)–Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38–Complainant and accused being unknown to each other prior to incident, identification parade was necessary, more particularly when complainant had stated that he could recognize accused–Prosecution case having been based on disclosure made by accused during police custody such course was inadmissible and of no legal value in view of Art. 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984–No recovery made from accused–Accused admitted to bail. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Karachi) 461 Offence u/ s 13/14 (Enforcement of Hadd) Offence of Zina Ordinance, 1979–Both petitioners were closely associated in transporting girls at instance of Mst. G and Mr. N in cars driven by them–It cannot be said that they were oblivious of their nefarious activities as they have been engaged to transport girls from house of Mst. G to place of prostitution–They have been actively associated with crime according to FIR and evidence so far collected by police–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 270 Offence U/S. 377 PPC read with S. 12 of Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance–There is difference of medical opinion regarding commission of offence on the ground of capacity of petitioner to perform sexual act–Even Investigating Agency rambled about application of section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Held : Case of petitioner is that. of further inquiry–Petition allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1260 Long standing practice cannot render S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. as inoperative if an accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, same cannot be withheld merely trial had commenced. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 881 Occurrence taking place in night time–Delay in lodging of FIR is 7 hours–Old enmity existing between parties–Identification of culprits is said to be on torch light–All PWs., interested witness–Conflict between ocular and medical evidence–Applicant not causing any injury to deceased, but he caused injury to PW–Case one of further enquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 473 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10(2)–Whether or not female with whom accused had claimed to have married, was divorced earlier by her husband, was a question of further inquiry and only trial Court could establish such fact–F.I.R. was delayed by three years for which no reasonable explanation was given–F.I.R. having been lodged after consultation–Tentative conclusion was borne out by fact that some difference of opinion existed on religious matters between accused and complainant–Both accused and female who allegedly had contracted marriage soon after divorce were living together as husband and wife–Prima facie, its hardly a case of zina–Accused was entitled to bail in the circumstances. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 913 Matrimonial dispute–Incident had taken place during day time and fatal shots were specifically ascribed to two co-accused persons–Presence of accused with gun though was manifest from evidence, but neither complainant nor witnesses had alleged that accused had made a direct fire at deceased or complainant party, but a general accusation was made that he was among those who made fires–No recovery of any fire-arm had been made from accused–Case further inquiry–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 921 Offence u/S. 459/397 PPC–Petitioner is admittedly student of 9th class and though was caught red handed he could not be able to have stolen away by snatching away any valuables from complainant and his sons–Complainant and petitioner have no injury on their persons–Petitioner fired from close range but could not hit petitioner–F.I.R. was registered by complainant’s sister–Allegation of previous enmity–Possibility of false implication due to malafide of police because of enmity and initiation of false case against petitioner is not ruled out–Petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last nine months–For reasons petitioner is held entitled to grant of bail. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1483 Case registered for offence U/S. 17(3) EHO–Contention that there has been no identification parade as is required under the law, only piece of evidence against appellant was that his name was disclosed by co-accused after arrest–This piece of evidence is to be examined in light of provision Qanun-e-Shahadat, as per case law decided by Federal Shariat Court in PLD 1996 Karachi 534 confession of an accused against co-accused is not acceptable–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Karachi) 665 Complainant and his brother fell unconscious as they ate intoxicated biscuits of accused and they were deprived of Rs. 10,45000/–Allegation of–There is delay of 12 days in lodging F.I.R.–Mere fact that co-accused namely Y and M had played main role and have not since been arrested would not dis-entitle petitioner to concession of bail particularly when no active role is attributed to him qua his co-accused–Petitioner was not attributed any overt act as compared to his co-accused, he has a case of further enquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 851 Two Investigating officers have held that petitioner is innocent whereas remaining two have held him guilty having been fired at the victim–Last Investigating Officer is of the view that matter still needs further probing–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 850 Offence u/S. 320/34 PPC–There is no motive for petitioner except that he is brother of accused S, who, wanted hand of Mst. S (murdered)–Challan is pending in court since 28.7.1996–Complaint and challan case are both pending adjudication before learned trial court, and for the time being there exist reasonable grounds for further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 985 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/16 read with S. 420/468/471/ 342/337-A(i) PPC–Bail–Grant of–Complainant (victim) in FIR. accepted accused as her lawfully-wedded husband–Reasonable grounds, therefore, did not exist to believe that accused was guilty of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and case was one of further inquiry within meaning of S. 497(21, Cr.P.C. making him entitled to grant of hail. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1017 offence u/s 302/34 PPC–Petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence and had done nothing except that. he raised lalkara that deceased be done to death–On this point, there is some difference between eye-witnesses and witnesses examined by Investigating officer–Some of them have supported plea of alibi that petitioner was away at the time of occurrence from place of occurrence as he had gone to house of his daughter in order to give her Christmas gift.–As such, circumstances revealed would make it a case of further inquiry—Question of vicarious liability shalt remain open so as to be settled at trial after examining evidence of prosecution and also that of defence- -Petition accepted_ PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lah) 1420 Offence u/S. 3/4 prohibition )Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 read with Anti Narcotic Substances Act„ 1997 Section 51 and 7–Two kilogram heroin–Rcovery of–Two senior police officers (DSPs) observed in zimni that petitioner was not involved in the commission of offence–Another DSP (third) held all three accused guilty meaning thereby that petitioner was also found to be guilty–Petitioner has been placed in column No. 2 meaning thereby he has not been challaned–Held : Offence under Anti-Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have been made non-bailable by section 51, yet offence which is though punishable u/S. 9, bail can he granted on finding that prima facie an accused person’s involvement appears to he extremely doubtful–Held further : Due to difference of opinion in police officers case of petitioner becomes that of further inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1393 Offence u/S. 3/4 prohibition )Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 read with Anti Narcotic Substances Act„ 1997 Section 51 and 7–Two kilogram heroin–Rcovery of–Two senior police officers (DSPs) observed in zimni that petitioner was not involved in the commission of offence–Another DSP (third) held all three accused guilty meaning thereby that petitioner was also found to be guilty–Petitioner has been placed in column No. 2 meaning thereby he has not been challaned–Held : Offence under Anti-Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have been made non-bailable by section 51, yet offence which is though punishable u/S. 9, bail can he granted on finding that prima facie an accused person’s involvement appears to he extremely doubtful–Held further : Due to difference of opinion in police officers case of petitioner becomes that of further inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1393 Offence u/s. 16 Offence of Zina Ordinance 1979–Abductee made three different statements including her statement on oath by which she absolved an accused of allegation of abduction and zina, but in her statement recorded later on u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. she implicated the above said accused and other applicants–It is yet to be determined as to which statement of abductee was correct–Held : Case of applicants requires further inquiry–Bail granted.PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1296 Offence U/Ss. 302/324/337-A-2 (ii)/148/149 PPC–During postmortem examination it was found that injury attributed to deceased was not caused by a rifle but it transpired that it was caused by pellets from a very close range–Complainant in supplementary statement has tried to bring statement in line with medical evidence by stating that as a matter of fact petitioner was armed with a .12 bore gun and he inadvertently mentioned same as rifle–This is an attempt to fill lacuna of prosecution case–No empty of 7mm was recovered and none of PW’s had received a rifle injury–Held: There are sufficient grounds for further enquiry which would bring case of petitioner under section 497 sub-section (2) Cr. P. C–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 537 Offence U/S. 364/34/302–Petitioner and other accused are not related inter-se—He is not connected with motive-of occurrence in any manner, except last seen evidence and pointation of place of occurrence no cogent evidence exists against petitioner–I.O. after conducting thorough investigation opined that co-accused had enmity with deceased whereas petitioner had no such enmity–I.O. declared petitioner as innocent–Opinion of Police though not binding upon court but being adverse to prosecution creates a reasonable doubt which is to be resolved in favour of petitioner even at stage of bail–Held : Opinion of police if based on sound material brings case of petitioner within ambit of section 497(2) Cr. P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1193 Accused were in judicial lock-up for last four months and were no more required for investigation–Two accused were minors–Cross-cases had been registered by both parties on same day at same police station and prima facie is a case of further inquiry–No justifiable purpose could be served by keeping accused in jail–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 855 Offence u/Ss. 302/324/148/149 PPC–According to supplementary statement of complainant petitioner had illicit relations with wife of brother of deceased but no such fact was mentioned in F.I.R.—Statement of complainant in F.I.R. as originally recorded and change of stand can be daubted that there are reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is guilty of an offence falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.—Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 881 Accused Being found innocent during investigation, was got discharged by police–On fresh investigation was found guilty and was arrested–Held: Investigating Officers are not unanimous about guilt of petitioner and principle of divergence of opinion is applicable–After discharge of accused/petitioner by competent authority police has not collected fresh material whatsoever–Both parties have grievances against doctors and they are not unanimous–Anal Swabs were not found stained with semen–No history of passing of stool–Petitioner is aged man–Mere delivery of copies of statements under section 161 Cr. P.C. would not be sufficient to reject bail–Reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that petitioner has committed non-bailable offence–Case falls within purview of section 497(2) Cr. P.C.–Bail allowed in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lah-) 333 Offence U/Ss. 10(2) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with S. 354 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Victim was medically examined after six days and no injury was found on her person, despite she was allegedly given beating by petitioner with butt of pistol and fists and also delay in lodging FIR makes out a case of further inquiry–Police has also recommended that an offence under Section 354 PPC has made out–It will be seen by learned trial Court whether a case under Section 10 (2) of Offence of Zina is made out or under Section 354 PPC–Bail granted. . PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 738 Allegedly petitioner has enticed away complainant and had subjected her to Zina-Bil-Jabr–His plea is that he had never enticed her away and she of her own accord had entered into valid Nikah with him and had been living with him as his wife and subsequently she under pressure of her parents had been forced to change her stand–Petitioner had brought suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her and same is pending ‘adjudication before a competent Family Court–Furthermore, police record reveals that in ultimate investigation, it has been found that she was consenting party and had eloped with petitioner of her own accord–In view of this position, when, she has been found to be a consenting party, it is yet to be seen that if her statement can be attracted any credence as against him, while she has exculpated herself from charge–In that view of matter, his case requires further inquiry into his guilt, so his case does fall under sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 278 Investigation indicated that maximum accusation against applicant was that he had demanded specified amount from a person for providing employment, however, it was not known whether employment was within the country or abroad and whether payment in question was actually made–Applicant in such background had been successful in making out his case of further inquiry–Applicant was, thus, ordered to be released subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of specified amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1007 Mis-appropriation of specified amount–Actual responsibility could not be determined and matter required further probe and inquiry–Amount involved was although sufficiently large but such fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail when investigation of case was not complete and commencement of trial was likely to take considerable time–Petitioner was in jail for more than three months–Petitioner was granted bail on furnishing bail bonds of specified amount. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1428 Initally formal charge against petitioner would be under Section 302 PPC but in view of opinion of police officer of rank of S.P. that it was offence of Qatl-e-Khata falling under Section 319 PPC on his part and not under Section 302 PPC, it is yet to be seen that he ultimately would be liable for what offence–Opinion of police though is not binding upon Court but it at same time is relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while deciding such like petition–He is behind bar for almost period of one year and seven months–His trial so far has not commenced–He is stated to be previous non-convict–All these facts bring his case within purview-of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt–Bail granted.           PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 314 Petitioner who was allegedly armed with a sota did not cause any injury on person of PW 1 or to any other PW–There is only one injury on person of PW 1 and that was found to be a fire-arm injury–In one of investigation, petitioner was found to be innocent–In second investigation, I.O. has concluded that petitioner was present at place of occurrence but no overt act has been attributed to him–No recovery has been effected from him–Allegation against petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within purview of sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1209 Case of–Offence u/S. 302/34 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Petitioner is resident of same locality, where occurrence took place–He was known to prosecution witnesses–They would have never omitted to mention his name in first information report, if he was seen by them at spot and had identified him–Evidence in question has been procured after many days of occurrence–If assailants could not be identified while still being in mosque, then investigating agency was under legal obligation to have organized a test identification parade, but it has not been so done–General features and complexion of persons seen in mosque were also not furnished to police while recording first information report or even thereafter–Witness of Waj Takkar evidence should have narrated all facts before investigating officer perceived through their senses–There are certain family disputes pending in between two sides–Possibility of petitioner’s involvement on basis of guess, gossip, rumours or imagination, cannot be ruled out altogether–Worth and value of whole lot of evidence is to be assessed by Trial Court after its due weighment–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 480 Offence u/Ss. 10(2) 13 and 14 of Offence of Zino. (Enforcement of Htidood) Ordinance, 1979–There is no eye-witness of occurrence except complainant who too . has been challaned?–There is no medical evidence in support of complainant’s version- She is stated to ue fugitive to law -There is a delay of 8 days in lodging FIR–Question of petitioner’s guilt would require further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1278 Admitteldy, no specific injury was attributed to petitioners, they were declared innocent by police and they were not connected with motive–They were behind the bar for the last one and a half year–In absence afore-referred’ circumstances question of petitioner’s guilt would require further inquiry–Resultantly, petition is allowed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 663 Supplementary statement was got recorded after a week of registration of criminal case, wherein petitioner was suspected as an accused by complainant–During investigation, no evidence has been collected worth consideration to connect him with alleged crime–So only evidence is of extra judicial confession of his co-accused, but this cannot be used against petitioner–He has been declared innocent by DSP in his investigation, therefore, case of petitioner has been made out of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1236 Every hypothetical question which may creep into mind and which could be resolved only after recording evidence and during trial would not make case that of further inquiry–Case of further inquiry would only be made out when data collected by prosecution is not sufficient to provide reasonable grounds for believing that a prima facie case existed against petitioner. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 886 Only one fire-arm injury of PW has been ascribed to petitioner and same was on his right thigh–It thus was on non-vital part of his body–He did not repeat injury to him–No injury of deceased was ascribed to petitioner–Question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at trial–His case, therefore, covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C calling for further inquiry into his guilt–Petitioner is stated to be behind bars for last about one year and a previously non-convict–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 612 Allegation of running brothal house–Petitioner lady was not apprehended at the spot as she had allegedly managed to escape–Boy and girl who were narrated in the F.I.R. were trying to commit zina had already been admitted to bail–Petitioner, being a women was also entitled to concession of bail on said ground as well–Even otherwise, case of petitioner was clearly one of further enquiry–No useful purpose can be served by keeping petitioner in judicial lockup for an indefinite period–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1334 Crime in question is alleged to have taken place on 26.12.2002 at `sham vela’ and report was made on following day at 1600 hours–Petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2002 from house of one of her relatives in locality–According to School Leaving Certificate petitioner was born on 10.3.1989–Learned counsel for petitioner contended with justification that keeping in view relevant provisions of aforesaid Ordinance, case of petitioner is triable in a Juvenile Court and plea of age coupled with factum of compromise, are sufficient for release of petitioner–Compromise can be considered as a redeeming feature in grant of bail–Bails are granted in non-compoundable offences on strength of compromise alone–Case against petitioner having been found a matter of further inquiry within meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 351 Offence u/S. 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Petitioner is not principal accused and allegation levelled against him is only in respect of being an abettor of co-accused–An offence under Section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 does not attract prohibitory clause contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.–It is not denied that alleged enticee had not been recovered from petitioner’s custody during investigation–For all these reasons case against petitioner surely calls for further inquiry into his guilt within purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 905 Fact remains that petitioner was not named in FIR–He was also not put to any identification test–Anything incriminating was also not recovered from him–He admittedly has been involved on basis of his alleged confessional statement before police, while same was recorded about more than one year after occurrence–All these facts make his case as one of further inquiry and same, therefore, is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C–He is stated to be behind bars for many months and previous non-convict–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 531 Fact remains that mere presence of petitioner with 7 MM rifle at the spot has been shown in F.I.R.–He has been ascribed no overt act in commission of crime alleged. Although second petitioner has been ascribed role of lalkara but he did not cause any injury despite fact that he allegedly was armed with .30 bore pistal–Admittedly nothing has been recovered from them–So question of their sharing common intention with their co-accused in attempt of murder of deceased and causing injury needs further inquiry and as such, their case is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 513 Petitioner admittedly is behind bars for last almost one year and three months and was not put to any identification test–Further more, nothing was recovered from him–His case, thus calls for further inquiry into his guilt and as such is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Na doubt, some cases of similar nature stand registered against him, but he admittedly is previous non-convict–Thus, merely due to registration of cases against him, he cannot he held to be a dangerous desperate or hardened criminal–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 318 Petitioner was not named in FIR–He was also not put to any identification test–There was delay of one month in lodging FIR–All these facts make petitioner case as one of further inquiry into his guilt, same therefore, was ‘covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–As regards alleged recovery from him, same maximum can attract an offence under Section 411 PPC, even if prosecution case as it is taken was true–Same is not covered within prohibitory clause of Section 497(1)Cr.P.C.–Petitioner was behind bars for last 1½ years and admittedly previously non-convict–His mere involvement in other cases would not come in his way to grant of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 517 Complainant had laid suspicion against petititioners in FIR that they have trespassed into his house and had stolen away his articles and cash amount–Same have not been recovered from them and instead they allegedly had paid amount of Rs. 36,000/- as price or compensation of these articles etc–Question that if in these circumstances of case they can be held liable for alleged offence needs consideration–Case is covered under sub-section (2) of S. 497 Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt–They are stated to be behind bars and previous non convicts–Bail granted PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 495 Commission of fraud attributed to petitioner–Entitlement to bail after arrest–Petitioner was neither witness nor attorney in any of alleged transactions of fraud–Petitioner was 65 years of age and his case does not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C.—Question of petitioner’s guilt requires further inquiry–Petitioner was, thus, entitled to bail– PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1682 It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that one un-known person had entered into house of complainant and had given a fire shot injury–This information was allegedly given to complainant by eye-witnesses who are his wife and daughter in law–It means complainant was not an eye-witness of occurrence but eye-witnesses at a latter point of time had given name of present petitioner alongwith two co-accused, therefore, prima facie, it appears that case of petitioner is one of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 385 Provisions of S. 497(2) Cr.P.C. are neither attracted or entailed to facts of case against petitioners nor same can come into play or pressed into service–Now what will constitute as sufficient grounds for further- inquiry, would depend upon peculiar facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for purpose–Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make case of further enquiry simply for reason that it can be answered by trial Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence–In any event, trial in court is stated to have commenced, expeditions proceedings therein are expected and conclusion thereof is in sight—Held : Petitioners cannot be taken to be entitled to concession asked for on plea including of further enquiry–Application rejected in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1651 Since co-accused, who were alleged to have caused fatal injuries and other one have already been released on bail by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, when they have been declared innocent by police–This case calls for further inquiry–It is now well settled principle of law that for the purpose f hod haw is not to be streched in favour f prosecution–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 647 Offence U/s. 489-D of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Injurieis present on body of accused could not be explained by Police Officer as to how he had suffered same–Said injuries could not be said to have been already present on person of accused at time of his arrest, otherwise they would have been mentioned in report–Expert opinion was essential to show whether material recovered from accused could be used in counterfeiting currency notes which was not obtained by prosecution–Case of accused therefore, needed further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1095 Offence under Section 302/34 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Accused was not named in the F.I.R. and some other persons were nominated therein as suspected culprits–No eye-witness of murder was available–Prosecution case rested on last seen evidence, but identification of accused was not admittedly indicated from police file–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1137 Offence U/S. 302/34 P.P.C.–Petitioner declared innocent by Police and placed in Column No. 2 of challan–Petitioner-accused did not injure deceased as well as prosecution witnesses–He is said to have restrained deceased–Victim would struggle to get herself freed and saved and in that process, accused of this category can also receive injury who obviously would not facilitate his co-accused as mentioned in FIR–Held: Crux of matter shows that involvement of petitioner is question of further enquiry who, as such, is entitled to be admitted to bail–Petition accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 649 Offence U/S. 302/34 P.P.C.–Petitioner declared innocent by Police and placed in Column No. 2 of challan–Petitioner-accused did not injure deceased as well as prosecution witnesses–He is said to have restrained deceased–Victim would struggle to get herself freed and saved and in that process, accused of this category can also receive injury who obviously would not facilitate his co-accused as mentioned in FIR–Held: Crux of matter shows that involvement of petitioner is question of further enquiry who, as such, is entitled to be admitted to bail–Petition accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 649
85. Further inquiry:– Since trial is not in view and it is still to established whose fire hlt injured witnesses, out of three accused, nominated in the FIR and this makes petitioner’s case f further inquiry; investigation is complete and challan is sent up; no injury to deceased is attributed to petitioner—Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lahore) 656 Deceased while in police custody died on account of severe torture received by him from police–Not only Assistant Commissioner but even S.P. Crimes Branch found that petitioner alongwith two other had committed murder–At bail stage it is difficult to say that there do not exist reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not involved in commission of crime–Bail refused. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 522 Where offences alleged were not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. court is to see attending circumstances, nature of offence committed and progress in trial/investigation made in case–Petitioner is in judicial lock-up for last more than seven months and prosecution is not in a position to make a statement regarding time that would be taken in conclusion of trial–Held: Prosecution cannot be given licence to retain petitioner for an indefinite period–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 437 Offence u/S. 302/34 Penal Code, 1860–Petitioners were empty handed–Only allegation against them is that they collapsed deceased before he was fired at by co-accused–Keeping in view role of petitioners and their plea before police, case against petitioners falls within ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 416 Offence U/S. 382/170/171/395 and 411 PPC–It is settled law that in cases of further inquiry bail is to be granted as a matter of right and not by way of any concession or grace–Factors put-forth by learned counsel for state essentially pertain to questions of discretion and propriety of granting of bail to an accused person who has remained an absconder and has been indulging in similar offences in past–It goes without saying that whenever questions of discretion and propriety are confronted with a question of right latter must prevail–In this view of matter, despite having no sympathy for petitioner due to his alleged involvement in other cases of similar nature, Court left with no option but to give to petitioner what is due to him as a matter of right–This petition is, therefore, accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 711
86. Further Inquiry–It. was held by august Supreme Court, in case of Arbab Ali r. Khamiso and others (1985 SCMR 195) that. bail can be allowed in a case otherwise allegedly falling under prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of S. 497 Cr.P.C. when there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of accused, but only, on condition when public officer or court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be comes to definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused has committed non-bailable offence–Without. such finding bail cannot be allowed under sub-section (2) on mere ground that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry–Reasonable grounds exist for believing that petitioner has committed non-bailable offence of nature which falls within prohibitory clause- Provisions of S. 497 (2) Cr.P.C. are neither attracted or entailed to facts of case against petitioner nor same can come into play or pressed into service-Held : Petitioner not entitled to concession of bail on pleas including further inquiry -Application accordingly merits rejection. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1647
87. Further inquiry–Name of petitioner neither appeared in F.I.R. nor he had been nominated in any other application, nor he was put to identification test, nor any recovery of robbed articles had been made from appellant and he had simply been involved at the behest of his co-accused, so all these facts make case of petitioner open for further probe–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 233
88. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:– There is no doubt that place of incident in both cases is one and same but there is no denial of fact that report lodged by applicant was prompt in point of time whereas counter report was lodged by Muhammad Qasim belated by 24 hours and there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for this inordinate delay which would prima facie tend to show that counter version was after thought and put forward after due deliberations–Instant death of deceased as a result of fire-arm injuries and hatchet wounds is not disputed and is supported by post mortem report–There is nothing on record to show that respondents were falsely implicated or that prosecution was launched with ulterior motive to disgrace or humiliate respondents–Sessions Judge committed an error by admitting respondents to pre-arrest bail at initial stage of investigation–Respondent Jawaid is neither related to other respondents nor did he commit any overt act in commission of offence–He was rightly granted bail–Held: Bail granted to other respondents is cancelled–Bail cancelled. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1174 Offence u/Ss. 409/109/34 PPC read with Section 5(2) Act. II of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947–There is no case for any humiliation or unnecessary harassment or false involvement has been made out–Prosecution is not motivated with any malice or ulterior motives–Two co accused were granted hail after arrest while applicant. has applied for anticipatory hail–Pre-arrest bail and bail after arrest are based on entirely different principles–Rule of consistency is misconceived–Suppression of filing earlier bail application and his abscondence are additional factors which disentitle applicant to grant of discretionary relief–Held No case for anticipatory bail–Application dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1299
89. Grant of bail to child/minor-Juvenile justice System Ordinance, 2000 being special law, was enforced in order to safeguard the rights of children/minors involved in criminal cases who deserved reasonable concession because of their tender age-Said law was to be liberally interpreted in favour of accused and if the age of an accused would be one day less than 18 years, he would come within the definition of a “child” as contained in S. 2(b) of juvenile justice system Ordinance, 2000 and would be entitle to the grant of bail, even if involved in case punishable with death-Such concession, however, was subject to the limitation contained in proviso to Cl. (c) of Subsection (7) of S. 10 of Juvenile justice System ordinance, 2000 under which, if the court would come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds were to believe that such child was involved in an offence which in its opinion, was serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal, sensational in character or shocking to public morality or he was a previous convict of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, then he would not be entitled to such concession. PLD 2004 Pesh. 11
90. Grave and sudden provocation–As claimed in FIR it self, it seems to be a case of grave and sudden provocation where petitioners on finding his wife in a compromising position with her paramour, killed both f them–In there circumstances bail is allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- (Lahore)
91. Ground, taking of–Specifically taking of plea–Necessity of–Held: It is not necessary in a bail petition that accused should specifically plead a plea–Benefit of doubt even at bail stage, held further, can be validly given if from record any legal plea could be raised or a reasonable doubt arises with regard to participation of accused in commission of offence. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 37
92. Guidelines for Pre-arrest bail:–Matter of pre-arrest bail is to be dealt with in accordance with conditions, laid down by superior Court’s from time to time in addition to conditions laid down u/S. 497 Cr.P.C.–Most essential of them are that intended arrest would he tainted with mala fide and it must be established that accused-petitioner apprehends his arrest on account of ulterior motive or prosecution is motivated by malice as to cause irreparable injury to his reputation and liberty and police is motivated on political consideration or other ulterior reasons. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 28
93. Guility of Accused:- Amount allegedly drawn by accused illegally, was paid back by accused and loss if any had been made good-Said fact alone would make the case against accused doubtful and necessitated for any inquiry to determine guilt of accused-Accused being a public servant, there was no apprehension of his tampering with prosecution case and also there was no likelihood of his abscondence-Entire evidence collected by prosecution was based on document which were in possession of the prosecution-Bail was opposed mainly on the ground that accused might tamper with evidence it enlarged on bail-If accused would abuse bail granted to him, State could prosecute its remedies in the court concerned, but at bail stage, in absence of evidence in support of said allegation, bail could not be refused to the accused-Involvement of accused in commission of offence, was yet to be established at the time of trial-Accused having succeeded to make out a prima facie case in his favour he was enlarged on bail. 2004 M L D 208
94. Haraabah Offence:- Mere registration of some cases against a person would not make him a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal so as to make him disentitled to legal benefit contained under Proviso III to subsection (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. according to which an accused of any offence not punishable with death is entitled to be admitted to bail if his continuous period of detention exceeds one year–Petitioner was arrested on 13.3.1994–Today is 13.8.1996–There is no exceptional circumstances in favour of prosecution–Petitioner allowed bail on statutory ground. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1667
95. Henious Crime:- Bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. is refused if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1213 Bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. is refused if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life–But if it appears, at any stage of investigation/inquiry or trial, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused has committed a non-bailable offence but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 916 Bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. is refused if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1213
96. Identification Parade–Ground of–Offence u/S. 302/459/460 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Accused were arrested on mere suspicion and there was no tangible evidence with police to arrest respondents–Only piece of evidence against Respondents is Identification Parade which, too, has been held in piecemeal and is weakest type of evidence as held by Superior Courts and sanctity cannot be attached to such Identification Parade and moreover no marks of identification have been noted by Judicial Magistrate of P.Ws who have identified Respondents during Identification Parade and no specific role I has been described by witnesses to respondent–Application for cancellation of bail dismissed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 851

In view of admission of Mst. U who is one of applicants that she and `N’ both are leading harmonious life as husband and wife, offence is not falling under Section 4 of Zina Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 and no offence is made out under Section 11/16 Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 and after statement given by said Mst. U before High Court learned counsel for State has not opposed to confirmation of bail and has recorded very frankly his no objection but has prayed that applicants be directed to extend their cooperation with investigating agencies–Interim bail granted earlier by High Court to applicants is hereby confirmed–However applicants are directed to cooperate with investigating agencies and in event of failure, State is at liberty to file application for cancellation o their bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 911 In view of admission of Mst. U who is one of applicants that she and `N’ both are leading harmonious life as husband and wife, offence is not falling under Section 4 of Zina Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 and no offence is made out under Section 11/16 Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 and after statement given by said Mst. U before High Court learned counsel for State has not opposed to confirmation of bail and has recorded very frankly his no objection but has prayed that applicants be directed to extend their cooperation with investigating agencies–Interim bail granted earlier by High Court to applicants is hereby confirmed–However applicants are directed to cooperate with investigating agencies and in event of failure, State is at liberty to file application for cancellation o their bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 911 S. 16/18–Bail–Allegations: that petitioner got married complaint’s wife without obtaining divorce. There is unexplained delay of 3 years and 4 months in lodging of FIR—Present F.I.R being 4th in between parties sufficient to establish enmity existing between them–One of petitioners being lady is entitled to concession of bail–Applicants being alleged of an offence punishable with maximum 7 years–A fit case of further inquiry–Bait allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 157   1984 PCr. LJ 129, 1994 PCr. LJ 164, 1995 PCr. LJ 635. 1995 PCr. LJ 1907, 1985 PCr. LJ 1377, 1990 PCr. LJ 326, 1994 PCR.. LJ 1555. 1992 PCr. LJ 981 ref

7. Innocence or guilt at bail stage–Question of innocence or guilt cannot be decided at bail stage and no verdict of innocence be given without recording of evidence. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Quetta) 314
8. Interim transitory bail–Accused a woman being an illegal immigrant was to face trial under S. 3/2(A)/14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 in a Court of first instance at Karachi which had issued non-bailable warrants for her arrest–Accused, however, was confined in Bahawalpur Jail–Power of High Court in respect of bail was large enough to grant anticipatory bail to a deserving person–Detention of accused in Jail at Bahawalpur could not serve any useful purpose–She was allowed interim transitory bail in the interest of justice. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 993
9. Ipse dixit of Police in bail before arrest. According to one Investigating Officer petitioner had been trying to get investigation transferred in which he succeeded–This factor is sufficient to shake veracity of opinion of three Investigating Officers. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 539 Shariat Court following ipsi dixit of Police released accused persons on bail–Validity–Police was although competent under law to initiate re-investigation and to submit supplementary challan, yet Courts of law have to form their own independent mind/judicial opinion as to whether at the stage of bail there were reasonable grounds for believing accused to be guily of commission of non-bailable offences as alleged by prosecution–Impugned judgment clearly showed the Shariat Court merely relied upon ipsi-dixit of Police and did not apply its judicial mind while releasing accused persons nor remanded bail made to trial Court to apply its independent judicial mind in reaching conclusion after taking into consideration original and supplementary challans as to whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that accused were not guilty of alleged offence–Order of Shariat Court releasing accused persons was set aside and they were ordered to be arrested forthwith–Case was remanded to District Court to deicde whether to proceed on the basis of original challan or supplementary challan or both of them simultaneously and thereafter to decide bail matter. PLJ 2002 SC (AJK) 147 PLD 1987 SC 103; 2000 SCR 344; PLJ 1995 SC ‘(AJK) 1; 1988 SCMR 1743;
10. It is well settled that hail is not be withheld by way of punishment–Prayer for bail may he considered in totality of circumstances including that grant of bail was not subject to rigours of prohibitory clause when offence was committed before promulgation of new law-However, in appropriate cases. depending on facts cif each individual case, bail can be refused in non-bailable offences even though alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1049
11. Judicial Confession of co-accused–As per settled law sole judicial confession of a co-accused cannot form basis for convicting another accused and at bail stage to that extent cannot be used to refuse bail to such an accused–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 346
12. Juvenile Justice System 2000–Offence U/Ss. 302/148/149/109 PPC–There is no reason to deny bail topetitioner, who is entitled for same in accordance with Clause-A of sub-section 7 of Section 10 of Juvenile of Justice System Ordinance 2000–Especially when role attributed to petitioner is that he caused simple injuries on person of deceased after he fell down due to injuries caused by other co-accused–A right of concession of bail had accrued to petitioner after one year of his arrest and if any delay has been caused afterward in conclusion of trial that cannot be attributed to accused–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. Lahore 841 Confessional statement of co-accused had been reduced into a report of the Daily Diary with mala fide intention by the Investigating Officer to involve the accused as his accomplice in the murder of the deceased and for providing of harbour after the commission of the crime-Said report of the co-accused was not fully supported by his judicial confession-No evidence connecting the accused with the offence was available on record who could be better a prosecution witness against his co-accused-Accused even otherwise was a minor-Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances-Accused according to the documents produced on record appeared to be below the age of eighteen years and he could only be tried by a court constituted under the juvenile justice System Ordinance 2000, Prosecution was consequently directed to submit the case of accused to the said Court-Revision petition was accepted accordingly. PLD 2003 Pesh. 138 Fatal shot was attributed to accused alone–Independent Mashir who was a police officer had captured accused within minutes of occurrence–Version of complainant was also fully supported by two eye-witnesses–Complainant party belonged to place different to residence of accused–Complainant could not, in the circumstances, be said to have intentionally suppressed name of accused in first portion of his F.I.R.–Medical evidence did not come in conflict with ocular version–Accused could not prove that he was minor within meaning of S. 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as Medical Board on examination of accused had opined that age of accused was 21/22 years–Prima facie sufficient evidence was available against accused to connect him with offence of Qatl-e-Amd–Bail application dismissed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 906
13. Lalkara :– Petitioners excepts Liaquat All attributed “Lalkara”–Double murder–Earlier laid application rejected by trial Court and High Court–After 4 months after submission of challan and framing of charge, S.P. Crime Branch conducting fresh investigation and declaring petitioners (except Liaquat Ali innocent–Thereafter trial Court rejected second bail application–Held: High Court has already expressed its view about role of Lalkara while dismissing previous application–After submission of challan, when charge has already been framed there was no justification for further investigation, whereas opinion of S.P. Crime Branch is based on same evidence collected by two Investigating Officers–Five prosecution witnesses have already been examined–Opinion of S.P. Crime Branch is ignored–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1328 Bail–Petitioner was empty handed and only “lalkara” is attributed to him–Motive is also ascribed to co-accused–Bail was allowed in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 187 Offence u/S. 302/147A/148/149 PPC read with 13(d) Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965–No overt act has been attributed to applicant excepting a `lalkara’–As far absconsion of applicant is concerned, it has been. held time and again that fugitive from law and justice can loose some of normal rights but it cannot be taken as hard and fast rule and every case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances–Since no proceedings under Sections 87 & 88 Cr.P.C. were initiated against applicant, Court is of the view that absconsion is not such by which applicant could be disentitled from concession of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi 1134
14. lalkara— Offence u/S. 302/ 181/34 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Only a proverbial Lalkara is attributed to petitioner–State counsel has admitted that according to investigation presence of accused at spot was not found; Ore-arm allegedly in possession of petitioner at time of occurrence was not recovered during investigation; no injury to deceased is attributed to him: act of sharing common intention with principal accused is to lie determined during trial hence for reasons stated above, case of petitioner is that of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 934
15. Majority of accused being found false–None recovery of theft property and empty cartridges from place of wardat–Law for purpose of bail is not be stretched in favour of prosecution and benefit of any doubt arising in case must go to accused–Allegation against applicants require further enquiry as envisaged under section 497(2) Cr.P.C–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C- (Karachi) 610
16. Marriage with fifth wife–Offence under Section 15, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Bail–Prayer for–Allegations in F. I. R. are that petitioner deceived complainant Mst. Farida by believing her that she was his legally wedded wife and married her knowing fully well that he could not contract this marriage as he had already four wives–Cohabitation with her by petitioner becomes an offence within purview of Section 15 of Ordinance if it is prima facie proved that it was not a valid marriage–One of his wives filed an affidavit that she had been divorced by petitioner 1½ years earlier which means that she was no more wife of petitioner at time of his marriage with complainant–Held: It is a case of further inquiry because in view of affidavit, prosecution has to bring on record evidence that case falls within michief of Section 15 of Ordinance–Bail allowed. PLJ 1993 Cr. C (Quetta) 481
17. Material to be seen-court, in order to form an opinion in a bail matter, has to look into the F.I.R., statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and the other incriminating material collected by the prosecution including the plea of the accused. 2004 P. Cr. L. J 58
18. Material to be taken into account At bail stage –To ascertain reasonable grounds, for bail it would be appropriate to see whether a prima facie case is disclosed against accused for which F.I.R. statements of PWs. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and other incriminating material brought by prosecution, including medical evidence etc. are to be taken in account. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 23

Maturity of mind of accused can better be judged by trial Court-Indeed, it would be premature to asses the state of mind, on the basis of material so far available unless witnesses are subjected to cross examination during trial– PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 968

9. Medical ground (epilepsy and ulcer of stomach)–Offence u/S.s. 302/324/353/34 read 13(d) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965–Benefit of hail on medical ground would not only be available to an accused whose sickness is such that his continued detention in jail would be hazardous to his life but also to person who is afflicted with sickness which cannot properly treated within premises of jail and requirers specialised treatment and his detention in jail is likely to affect his capacity–Jail medical officer has himself reported that proper facilities are not available in jail for treatment of disease–Held : Case of applicant. covered by criteria laid down by Supreme Court for grant of hail on medical ground–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1387
10. Medical ground and old age–Offence U/Ss. 302/34 PPC–Petitioners, an old man of 82 years, is a sick person and is suffering from serious disease known as ‘Parkinson”–Held : Sufficient grounds to extend him concession of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.0 (Peshawar) 770
11. Minor or adult–Question of–Further inquiry–Case of–School leaving certificate shows that on relevant date, petitioner’s age was fifteen years, five months and ten days–Petitioner seems to be a minor for the purpose of offence u/s 302 and as such petitioner’s case falls u/S. 306 PPC i.e. Qatl-e-Amd not liable to Qisas, punishment of which is given in Section 308 PPC which in case of proof of guilty is only Diyat–No doubt, second proviso to section 308 PPC a minor who had attained sufficient maturity so as to be able to realize consequences of his act, may also be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to 14 years as Ta’zir–But determination of attainment of sufficient maturity can be made at trial after recording evidence, hence it is a case of further inquiry–Petition allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1296
12. Murder and murderous assaults–Offence of–Accused/applicants are in custody since 10-10-1993 and delay what-so-ever occurred has not been due to any act of accused/applicants or any person acting on their behalf–There is no information on record on behalf of state whether other criminal cases are pending against applicants and prosecution has not even alleged that applicants are either dangerous or hardened criminals–Trial Court over looking provisions of section 5A S.T.A. Act 1975, has been adjourning case–High Court agree with rule laid down by Superior Courts in such like case/matters–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 643
13. Murder by strangulation— Prayer for–It is evident from F.I.R. that only eye-witness of occurrence was Mst.Amin Begum–She has sworn affidavit and confirmed same by personally appearing before High Court that she had not seen accused killing deceased and her statement before police was as a result of coercion and duress–Prima facie there appears to be no material on record to connect accused with offence charged against them–Circumstances narrated by. State counsel, may create suspicion against accused but they cannot be convicted on basis of a suspicion however strong it may be–Held: It is obviously a case of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1993 Cr.C.(Lahore) 408
14. Murder Case:- Occurrence taking place at 5.30 pm. on 7.3.1995–No darkness at that time–Eye-witnesses were accompanying deceased–Petitioner named in F.I.R. and specific role attributed to him–Agitation about innocence of accused is no ground to declare that he is innocent–Opinion of Investigating Officers based on their whims and figment of brain has to be discarded–Contention that petitioner alleged to have fired with rifle but no bullet was recovered by Medical Officer during Post-mortem, but 4 pellets were recovered–Deeper merits of the case cannot be analysed at bail stage–Involvement of accuseu in occurrence prima facie proved–Case falls under prohibitory clause–Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr. C (Lahore) 1416 Record showed that accused had also been fired at by deceased and a cross-report was lodged against deceased to that effect – Neuro-Surgeon who had examined accused declared age of accused as 13 years at the time of his examination-Such aspects made case of accused arguable for grant of bail – Interference in grant of bail declined. 1989 P. Cr. L J 1706 Petitioner is ascribed fatal injury to deceased, (a female) and prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is connected with offence–Petitioner is nominated in FIR–Allegation of repeated blows has been levelled against him–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C (Lahore) 1729 Bail granted by High Court, cancelled by Sessions Judge–Challenge to–If bail is granted by High Court, then High Court alone can vary or rescind order passed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. and Magistrate or Sessions Judge is not empowered to cancel bail granted to accused and to take him into custody–Held: Impugned order is not sustainable on additional ground that petitioner was not served with any show cause notice as to why bail granted to him by High Court, should not be cancelled–Bail allowed. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 307 Bail on ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial–Prayer for–Effect of omission of 3rd and 4th provisos to Section 497 Cr.P.C., is that pre-amendment position of law stands restored and Court enjoys discretionary power to grant bail on ground of delay in conclusion of trial–Court now enjoys discretion to grant bail on ground of delay of trial even before expiry of periods mentioned in third proviso–Petitioner is behind bars for last 2 1/2 years and his case was entrusted to an Additional Sessions Judge recently and conclusion of trial is bound to take considerable time–Petitioner is alleged to have caused fire arm injury on leg of Zafar Ali Shah PW which was declared to be simple in nature–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C.(Lahore) 73 Medical Officer has certified that Muhammad Feroze is old man of about 75 years with poor physique and has opined that his treatment in jail was not possible–It seems that High Court has not taken into consideration opinion of medical officer–Held : Old age of Muhammad Feroze and ailment he is suffering from, are sufficient to extend him concession of bail–Bail allowed PLJ 1996 SC 850 Facts of case are not sufficient to fulfil test as discussed by Supreme Court, particularly in absence of material to conclude that Jail authorities are not offering proper treatment to petitioner No.4–Held: No case has been made out for grant of hail–Application dismissed.- PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Quetta) 450 1968 SCMR 289 and 1970 SCMR 514 rel. Bail on statutory ground–Prayer for–Petitioner had absconded after occurrence and was charged for committing murder of complainant of this case–Held: Petitioner appears to be a recidivist and, as such, can be safely labelled as a dangerous and desperate criminal within contemplation of fourth proviso to Section 497 of Cr.P.C.–Held further: Even -otherwise, trial has virtually concluded, therefore, it will be more appropriate if bail is declined–Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of case–Bail refused. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. Respondent No.1 is not an accused person so far as his name is not included in challan in column of accused persons but appears in cloumn No.2 because investigating agency was short of material against him–Held: No interference is warranted at this stage because prosecution does not treat respondent No.1 as accused person so far- Held further: Question whether order of bail granted by High Court was valid or not, will arise only when steps are taken by prosecution to treat respondent No.1 as accused person. PLJ 1992 SC 398 Occurrence took place on 4.12.1988 and petitioner was arrested on 21.5.1991–He remained fugitive from law for a long time–Contention that he had gone to Karachi out of fear of police torture, is not convincing and acceptable–He has been directly charged in most promptly lodged report–Held: Petitioner’s role of catching hold of deceased amounts to abetment and there being a prima facie case against him, his application for bail is rejected. PLJ 1992 Cr.C (Peshawar) 192 A perusal of motive as narrated in F.I.R., sufficiently demonstrates that petitioner’s version about immoral liaison between his daughter and deceased, was a plausible explanation of reasons which could have prompted him to kill deceased–Medical evidence and report of Chemical Examiner further strengthen defence plea–Law makes a definite allowance for people acting under grave and sudden provocation–Petitioner claims to have acted under Ghairat–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C.(Lahore) 131 It is settled principle of Law that if only evidence consists of confession of an accused person, confession must be accepted or rejected as a whole but if there is also ocular or circumstantial evidence which contradicts a part of confession, then it is permissible to a court to accept that part of confession which is consistent with evidence and reject that part of confession which is inconsistant with it–In this case apart from confession, there is oral evidence of P.Ws and other circumstantial evidence conneeting applicant with crime–Held: No case .has been made out for grant of bail–Bail refused. PLJ 1994 Note 88 All three accused including applicant had come to house of complainant in furtherance of their common intention, duly armed with deadly weapons–Applicant had motive and in fact, all accused came from a far off place at night time–It is clear from evidence that other two accused who fired upon deceased, also did so in furtherance of common intention of all accused–Held: By application of Section 34 PPC, applicant is equally liable for commission of main offence, i.e., murder–Bail refused. PLJ 1994 Note 87 Applicant is alleged to have been annoyed on marriage of his sister with deceased–Intention coupled with motive, prima facie shows that applicant had caused injury with Danda with full force, on head of deceased as a result of which, he died subsequently–It is day time occurrence and F.I.R. was lodged without any delay–Held: Prima facie there is sufficient evidence against accused to connect him with commission of crime for which he is charged–Bail refused. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Karachi) 446 Applicant is alleged to have caused hatchet injury but it is not clear as to which injury is attributed to him–Both injuries caused by hatchet are simple in nature–According to medico legal report, death occurred on account of fire-arm injuries caused by Ayub, co-accused of applicant–Held: Case of applicant is, prima facie, that of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Karachi) 427 Judicial confession is verbatim copy of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by Police–Advance knowledge of police stated in confession, can only corroborate; confession when confessor had not done so at instance of prosecution–Alleged recovery of pistol from Otak of Zahid Ali Shah in presence of two police mashirs, prima facie at pointation of applicant, cannot be established as recovery from exclusive possession of applicant–Held: Prima facie, case of applicant is that of further enquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Karachi) 440 There is no direct evidence of commission of murder against petitioner, main evidence being extra-judicial confession allegedly made before witnesses, wherein he stated that deceased had attempted to commit sodomy with hith; so he killed him with Sota–Held: It can be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner has not committed murder and there is also a possibility of plea of self-defence raised by him before police immediately after his arrest and also told by him to witnesses of extra-judicial confession, being true–Bail allowed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C(Lahore) 13 Fresh application for grant of bail–Contention that in F.I.R. it was stated that applicant was injured with stone but this fact stands falsified by injury No. 5 which was caused by a sharp-edged weapon–Held : It is well settled that prayer for bail can only be repeated if a new ground has become available but this situation does not exist in this case–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 SC (AJK) 291 Prosecution was too slow to lead evidence in this case–Even statements of two P.Ws were recorded by trial court after endeavouring much in this respect–Attitude of laxity displayed by prosecution, is deplorable and delay in trial cannot be attributed to accusedapplicant–Held: Keeping in view absence of report of Serologist and a number of opportunities allowed to prosecution to lead evidence, applicant is admitted to bail. PLJ 1994 Cr.C (AJK) 329 Except medical ground, all other grounds were raised and have been dilated upon in previous bail application–No judgment has been cited to support contention that mere filing of challan after rejection of rearlier hail application would entitle accused to move second hail application–Held: Grounds for hail previously agitated having not been found sufficient to enlarge petitioners on hail by this court,’ application to extent of those grounds is not competent. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Quetta) 450 Earlier bail application was dismissed having been withdrawn few months prior to present application–No fresh ground has been made out–Complainant’s version was not contradicted in cross-examination by defence–Medical evidence certified that nature of injuries was grievous caused by fire arm–Held: Prima Facie, case under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 PPC read with Section 324 of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and Section 13-D of Arms Ordinance, 1965, is made out against accused/applicant–Application Dismissed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Karachi) 450 FIR mentioned about other accomplices whereas case has been challaned only against applicant–Allegation in FIR that applicant alongwith accomplices caused death and injuries would require further enquiry–Mere particularly because no other accomplices have been shown in challan–Security can be demanded from applicant before he is released on bail and in the event if he is found mis-using concession of bail, prosecution can always file an application for cancellation of bail–Bail application allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 793 Bail refused by Sessions court-Challenge to–Affidavits of witnesses in defence of accused about alibi–Sworning of oath on Holy Quran about innocence of accused–I.O./SDPO declared the accused innocent–Held: It was a futile attempt on the part of the 1.0. to help petitioner-accused–There is no provision in Cr.P.C. to get settled such matters on oath of Holy Quran of persons strangers to case–Holding “punchayats” even in mosques is devoid of any legal force–Such methods are adopted by police to help accused persons–If such working is approved then what is necessity of holding investigation according to provisions incorporated in Cr.P.C.–It has become a trend in police department that Investigations are conducted by Police Officers on personal whims and figment, of brain of Investigating Officer–If weight is given to such a working there would be judicial anarchy resulting in administrative chaos whereby law and order situation would worsen–Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1394 Petitioner had no independent motive to commit offence, although armed with 12 bore gun, did not use it, at all-Ocular account was not fully in line with medical evidence–High Court is of the considered view that petitioner has not committed a non -bailable offence but there were sufficient grounds for further enquiry which tntitJes petitioner for grant of bail–Question of applicability of section 34 PPC will he determined at stage of trial–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 884 Both petitioners were named in FIR and had been firing at time of occurrence–Though investigation agencies, have given two different opinions regarding involvement of petitioners, but ultimately it was decided that they should be send up for trial–There is a set of eye witnesses to support prosecution version as contained in F.I.R.–Mere fact that police was unable to recover weapons of offence from petitioners would not make it a case of further enquiry nor would entitle them to bail because deeper appreciation about merits of case cannot be made at bail stage–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1723
15. Murder case–Offence u/S 302 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Two appellants being involved in murder case, data so far collected by prosecution was sufficient to constitute prima facie case against main accused, while case against co-accused was distinguishable who has not been attributed any active role, in as much as, role of firing at deceased was assigned to main accused–Only one empty of specified bore of pistol was recovered from spot, but there was no recovery of other material relevant to Kalashinkov with which co-accused was allegedly equipped–Medical report also showed that there was only one entry wound on the body of deceased–Case of co-accused thus, calls for further inquiry, therefore, bail application in respect of co-accused only, was accepted while application relating to main accused was rejected–Petitioner (Co-accused) was thus, to be released on bail provided he furnished bail bound in the sum of specified amount. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 578 Applicant has been named in FIR and role of fire at deceased, who had suffered fire arm injuries, is attributed to Applicant; empties have been recovered from place of wardat and there is sufficient material available on record to connect Applicant with commission of offence and Applicant has also been implicated by Complainant in his evidence given by him before trial Court with specific role and at bail stage Court has not to go in details of evidence and Superior Courts have always decided to avoid deeper appreciation at stage of bail–Complainant and a witnesses have implicated Applicant and at moment there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and Court at bail stage cannot go into details of evidence, nor evidence could be sifted at bail stage and prima facie Applicant has not been able to make out a case for grant of bail–Bail declined. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 740 Bail application of appellants, arrested on charge of murder was refused by Courts below–Petitioner claiming concession of bail from High Court–Petitions alongwith absconding accused had attacked complainant party and killed complainant’s father who was hit by gun-fire and killed on the spot–Petitioners have although been charged for in effective firing on complainant, yet with fatal firing of their absconding brother, father of complainant was hit and killed on the spot–At present stage it would not be material to determine as tow hose fire hit whom in, as much as, common attack launched by petitioners with absconding accused would indicate their common intention, as such every accused would be liable for criminal act as if the same was done by him alone–Role of ineffective firing does not make petitioner’s case to be further inquiry–Case of further inquiry can only be pressed into service when either Police Officer concerned or the Court had formed opinion that there were reasonable grounds to hold that accused were guilt on non-bailable offence–There being no such finding in petitioner’s case, plea of further inquiry could not be pressed into service–Motive also reflected high handedness of accused party in as much as, after deduction of deceased’s daughter by absconding accused they were pressurising complainant and his father (deceased) to condone their criminal act previously committed–Petitioners alongwith absconding accused having collectively attacked and killed deceased, they were all liable for commission of crime—Petitione’rs case falls under prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C. therefore, they were not entitled to concession of bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 793 Whether High Court has jurisdiction in hail matter — Question of — Section 3, Section 5(3) & (5) and Section 11 of Special Courts for Speedy Trial Ordinance/Act, 1992, have left no scope for grant of bail by High Court, in a case lawfully transferred to Special Court — However, enIrustment of case to Special Court has been challenged in writ petition which stands admitted to regular hearing by a Division Bench and proceedings have been stayed–Thus order of entrustment of case stands suspended and Special Court cannot pass any order including grant or refusal of hail till decision of writ petition — Held: In view of necessary implications of stay order, this Bench as also court of Sessions have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of bail applications in question. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Lahore) 282
16. Murder offence– Learned Single Judge of High Court while cancelling bail of Mst- N and Mst. J has appraised evidence collected by investigating agency in a way as to give a finding on culpability of appellants which was inappropriate at bail stage, and no consideration was given to factors which had weighed with learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to Mst- N–Contention raised on behalf of appellant/accused M that he could not be connected with murder of deceased on statement of his father made after 9/10 days of occurrence called for further inquiry under S. 497(2) Cr-P.C. to which learned Judge in High Court had not at all adverted–Learned judge in High, on the contrary, has taken into consideration extraneous circumstances to decline bail to appellant/accused M–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 SC 1713 petitioner claiming bail remained absconder from law for more than four years-Fugitive from law and Courts loses, some of normal rights granted by procedural as well as substantive law-Un-explained noticeable abscondence disentitles a person to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case. PLJ 2004 Cr.C Pesh 170
17. Murder Offence.–Out f two injuries on head f deceased only injury No. 2 was declared as cause f death–Not specifically attributed to any f two accused–Case of further enquiry–Case f cross version–According to F.I.R. complainant party also caused stick blows to accused who sustained injuries–Trial Court granted bail to both accused–Cancellation moved–High Court without taking notice that only one injury on head of deceased can be held to be cause f death–It is not established from record which f two accused petitioners caused this particular injury–It was also not a case where it could safely stated that two petitioners shared common intention–Supreme Court under circumstances f case set aside order f High Court and restored that f the trial Corot–Bail confirmed. PLJ 1996 SC 156
18. Murder Offence:- Incident is that of day time which has taken place at 7 A.M., FIR was lodged promptly on some day at 7.25 A.M.–Police directly inspected wardat and also recovered 4 empties from wardat which were sealed in separate parcel by police–Eye witnesses have implicated accused/applicant to have fired with pistol and that Mst. T. received pistol shot injuries–PWs were cross examined by accused, nothing substantial has come out from cross examination–Police have also recovered unlicensed revolver of 32 bore on pointation of accused–In view of evidence so collected, prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is guilty of offence for which he has been challaned–Application dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C. (Karachi) 781
19. Name of applicant does not appear in F.I.R.–No recovery from arrested applicant, so let off by police–Again arrested on basis of confessional statement of co-accused–No identification parade of applicant–Confessional statement of co-accused cannot form basis of conviction–Prima facie good case for grant of bail—Applicant admitted to bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1314
20. National Accountability Bureau Ordinance:– Previous bail application filed by the accused was rejected by High court on merits and accused had filed second bail application in view of some fresh grounds and subsequent developments in the case-Provisions of S. 369, Cr. P.C though were not applicable to the bail application, but there must be some justification for second or successive bail application-In present case certain happenings and developments had taken place after rejection of previous bail application of the accused-Proceedings had already been stayed against the principal accused by the Trial Court again sty which state had filed revision before High court which was yet to be decided-One of the co-accused was still absconding and other co-accused was on interim pre-arrest bail which was granted by High court and proceedings against him had also been stayed-Prima facie a policy of pick and choose had been adopted by National Accountability Bureau Authorities by not including the members of the Cantonment Board a accused who had published tender notice despite there was a ban imposed by the Government in that respect-Accused was in jail for the last more than nineteen months and the trial was not within sight in near future-Bail could not be withheld as a punishment and nobody could be kept in jail for indefinite period-Case for grant of bail having been made out, the accused was granted bail. PLD 2003 Kar. 393
21. Non-recovery of weapon of offence–Whether matter of further inquiry–Question of–FIR clearly shows that petitioner has chosen head of deceased to cause injuries by wielding sota blows carried by him–Reference to postmortem report of deceased clearly indicates that injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edge weapon whereas injury No. 4-a, b, c and d alongwith injuries Nos. 8 & 9 were caused by fire Arm–Rest all of injuries were caused with blunt weapon–Held : It will be premature to say that petitioner has case of further inquiry–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 297
22. Non-Submission of Challan under S.173(1), Cr. P. C. or commencement of trial under S.344, Cr. P. C. per se would not constitute a ground for grant of bail to an accused under S.497(1), Cr. P. C. particularly in the matters where accused is involved in a heinous crime entailing punishment of imprisonment for life. PLD 2002 S.C. 590
23. Ofence under P.P.C. read with section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Sodomy–Offence of–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–No eye-witness was cited in F.I.R.–Complainant was a married man and Nikahnama register shows age of complainant as 18 years–F.I.R. was lodged with unexplained delay of more than nine hours–Accused is also of same age and to commit unnatural offence forcibly, prima facie, does not appeal to prudence–Doctor who medically examined victim saw no signs of violence or any abnormality–Medicolegal report does not favour prosecution–No progress has been made in trial of case–Held : Petitioner cannot be kept in lock-up for an indefinite period because law does not countenance it–Bail granted PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 320
24. Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979 read with Arms Ordinance, 1965, Section 13-D–Bail–Prayer for–Applicants were arrested on 26.5.1993 and identification test was held after four days thereof which itself is a circumstance which makes identification doubtful–Only other piece of evidence is recovery of Rs. 1500/-from applicant No. 1–No details of currency notes having been mentioned in F.I.R., this piece of evidence will have no evidentiary value–Prosecution witnesses have sworn affidavits exonerating applicants and they have admitted and verified contents of affidavits–Held: Applicants have made out a case of further inquiry within meaning of Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C.–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Note 85 Petitioner has not been legally tendered pardon–Order of Sessions Judge refusing bail to petitioner ‘on ground of being approver, is not sustainable in law–Main accused had been granted bail by Deputy Commissioner–Another accused who hatched conspiracy and accompanied culpirts, was arrested but he absconded–Held: Case of petitioner is of further enquiry and falls under sub-section(2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail allowed, PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Quetta) 453
25. Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)–Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38–Complainant and accused being unknown to each other prior to incident, identification parade was necessary, more particularly when complainant had stated that he could recognize accused–Prosecution case having been based on disclosure made by accused during police custody such course was inadmissible and of no legal value in view of Art. 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984–No recovery made from accused–Accused admitted to bail. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Karachi) 461 Both petitioners were closely associated in transporting girls at instance of Mst. G and Mr. N in cars driven by them–It cannot be said that they were oblivious of their nefarious activities as they have been engaged to transport girls from house of Mst. G to place of prostitution–They have been actively associated with crime according to FIR and evidence so far collected by police–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 270 Whether applicant falls within definition of desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal–Question of–Simply mention of four or five F.I.Rs. does not bring applicant within definition of hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal or terrorist–Registration of cases was not sufficient to sustain the opinion that applicant was criminal of categories as mentioned in fourth proviso–Held: Applicant does not fall in any of categories as mentioned in fourth proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. namely, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or terrorist–Application accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1675
26. Offence of cheating–Question of proof–No evidence was produced by prosecution to connect appellant With commission of alleged offence of cheating–Mere allegation without proof that appellant had faxed certain him with crime alleged against him–No evidence was brought ‘disrecord that appellant had in fact faxed those document to Bank–Appellant was not proved to have detained any illegal gain–No reasonable grounds would indicate that appellant was guilty of alleged offences–Appellant was released on bail in circumstances. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 923
27. Offence of sodomy under Section 377 PPC–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–There is absolutely no plausible explanation about 3 days’ delay in lodging F.I.R.–In Punchayat, version of complainant was that three other persons besides petitioner, had committed un-natural offence with him but no such claim is made in F.I.R.–There were no signs of lying down or scuffle at place of occurrence–After 24 hours, it is difficult to trace semen within bowl–Held: Petitioner has a good case for bail–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1358
28. Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance) 1979— If the grounds were raised and rejected at the first bail application the same cannot be made the basis of subsequent bail application–Accused has been clearly implicated by two others daughters of complainant–One of the daughter had given birth to an illegitimate child due to Zina-bil-Jabr committed upon her by accused–Application dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1428 Suit for Jactitation of marriage instituted by abductee–Trial not started in spite of lapse of 6 months–Held: Abductee recovered from custody of accused/petitioner–Abductee in her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. implicated accused/petitioner for commission of Zina-bil-jabr–Vaginal swabs found stained with semen–Delay in lodging F.I.R. has no weight–Institution of suit for Jactitation is no ground for admission to bail–Being a case of moral turpitude cannot be taken lightly–Bail refused. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 67 Allegation in FIR that after having enticed away daughter of complainant, accused committed zina with her—Abductee being age of 22 years herself filed two writ petitions categorically maintaining therein to be lawfully wedded wife of accused–Held: It is prima facie difficult to believe that a lady of such a mature aged would have been enticed away in manner alleged in FIR–Alongwith the bail application, accused also filed two affidavits sworn by complainant and one PW forgiving accused and offered no objection to grant of bail to him–Held further: All these factor do indeed render case against accused to be one of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1278 Both the parties had gathered with specific intention and common object of committing Zina-Females involved in the case hailed from different cities of Punjab Province-Offence could not be committed due to the intervention of the police-Court might decline to admit the accused to bail even in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) Cr. P.C after a tentative assessment of the material available on record-Sufficient material had come on record prima facie involving the accused in the offence charged against them-Female accused being residents of different cities of Punjab, possibility of their abscondence could not be ruled out and their release on bail could encourage them to repeat the same offence in order to earn their livelihood-Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.   PLD 2003 Kar. 65 Delay in lodging FIR–In abduction cases where honour of family is involved, people do not rush to police station but try to exhaust all other sources for tracing abductee, hence delay in lodging FIR is of no consequence. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 61 Petitioner has been declared innocent in investigation so far conducted by police; delay of six months is not properly explained nor there is any direct evidence/ witness of alleged occurrence–Petitioner is on judicial remand and challan has not so far been submitted–Completion of trial not being in sight petitioner cannot be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1238 Without expressing any opinion on merits of case and considering facts that abductor named in FIR and his wife were found innocent and prosecution story was found false and there is delay of more than 15 days in lodging FIR—Case of the petltioner becomes that of further inquiry—Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1117 Challan was submitted in court but inspite of pendency of case for about six months not a single witness has been recorded–Petitioner No. 2 being woman is entitled to concession of bail as admissible to her under proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C.–Offence is not covered by prohibitory clause, therefore petitioner cannot be kept in confinement for indefinite period nor they can be punished for slackness on the part of prosecution–Either of petitioner has no criminal history–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. Lahore 801 Section 10/16 read with Section 380/411 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Bail–During investigation U.S.P. found petitioner innocent and recommended se for cancellation–Alleged abductee/petitioner in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. absolved petitioner of case–Complainant has sworn affidavit that case was registered due to misunderstanding caused by P.Ws. who were inimical with accused/petitioner–Case falling under sub-section (2) of S. 497 Cr. P.C. entitling concession of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- (Loh-) 365 Applicant is over 16 years of age as per school leaving certificate–Offence under Section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is punishable with life imprisonment and whipping numbering 30 stripes–Applicant has committed very heinous offence of zina with a nine years old girl who was found naked and was bleeding profusely from her private part and which fact is supported by medical certificate–Incident is of day time and F.I.R. was promptly lodged without any delay–Bail refused. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Karachi) 443
29. Offence U/A. 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979–Petitioner claims to be Government servant, it is highly condemnable for a Government servant to associate and contribute in promotion of evil business of heroin for monetary return–Moreover, petitioner remained absconder for noticeable long period of 32 months, which disentitles him to concession of bail notwithstanding the merit of case–Since petitioner is involved in an offence which is against society at large and falls within prohibitory clause–Application rejected. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1456 -Allegation against applicant/accused is that he was in possession of 40 packets of bhung–As such at most article 4 will be applicable for which punishment prescribed is two years which does not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C.–Held : Applicant is admitted to bail PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 378 Petitioner is in judicial lock-up and according to report under section 173 Cr.P.C. all prosecution witnesses are police officials–Inspector was not only recovery witness but was also a complainant and I.O. undoubtedly causing prejudice to case–Held: Case is open to further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. Lahore 1299
30. Offence U/S 13 Arms Ordinance 1965 and 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 read with section 9-13/47/95 control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance–From petitioner an unlicenced rifle was recover and a case was registered–He was under interrogation when he imparted information before Police that he has kept herein 101 grams in his possession in his shop another case was got registered–It was again during interrogation that petitioner imparted that he had kept heroin and 7 MM rifle in his house and a third case was registered–There is nothing on record to make out that any effort was made by Police to join any person from public in terms of section 103 Cr.P.C. as search was allegedly being effected from house and shop of petitioner–No doubt police officials/Officers of any rank are respectable persons, but law of country has to be given weight–Police has by mistake applied Article 9-B of control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 which infact should be Article 9-C, in view of weight of heroin recovered which allegedly was more than 100 grams–However, due to non-compliance of Article 22 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 and Article 18 of Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 according to which police has to obtain permission from competent person/Authority to make search of shop/house of accused, involvement of petitioner can safely be held to be a question of further inquiry–During arguments it was admitted before registration of F.I.R. No. 406 dated 26.11.95 U/S 13 of Arms ordinance, 1965 no case of instant nature was registered/decided and pending against petitioner which is a salubrious circumstance in his favour to make High Court express that he has good case for his admission to bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 870
31. Offence u/s 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Bail rejected on two previous occasions since witnesses had not been examined by trial court, therefore, High court on basis of 161 Cr.P.C. statements refused bail–Court can examine statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. only when witnesses have not been examined by Court–However, when such witnesses are examined by court then it is statements recorded by trial court which shall be relevant for purpose of assessment whether to grant or refuse bail–Applying this principle to facts of present case, statements which have been recorded by trial court shall have to be considered for purpose of grant or refusal of bail–While rejecting bail at two previous occasions since witnesses had not been examined by trial court, therefore, this court on basis of 161 Cr.P.C. statements refused bail to petitioner–But all four witnesses have now prima-facie not implicated present accused, therefore, his case falls within category of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Quetta) 874
32. Offence u/s 324/34 PPC–Petitioner while armed with a revolver had fired at victim straight towards him–Though fire had hit non-vital part of upper portion of body, but weapon used; and firing it straight towards victim would give an impression that intention attributed to him in FIR cannot be successfully repelled at bail stage–Petitioner has no case of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 421
33. Offence U/S. 302 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 34 PPC–Grounds for grant of bail (i) Absence of recovery of alleged used weapon from applicant/accused, (ii) previous enmity of applicant with complainant party, (iii) Mention of name of applicant/accused as witness in case pending against complainant party and (iv) difficulty to put responsibility of causing fatal injury upon applicant if it is believed that he had gun and had fired also–Besides High Court is of the view that case of applicant was basically on same footing as those of co-accused who were granted bail by trial Court–Held: Case of applicant falls in clutches of further inquiry attracted by section 497 (2) Cr.P.C–Bail granted PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1199
34. Offence under (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979–Delay in lodging FIR has been explained–Prosecution version is fully supported by material on record–There is nothing on file to suggest false implication of petitioner as there is no animosity between parties–Trial commenced and next date of hearing has been fixed–Petitioner has failed to establish that case is of “further inquiry”–Bail declined with observation that findings arrived at by High Court are tentative in nature and would not influence the mind of trial Court while determining guilt or innocence of petitioner. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 211
35. Offence under Arms Ordinance, 1965–There is delay of about 14 months in lodging F.I.R. but that has been explained that complainant and his family members were under threats–Name of applicant transpires in F.I.R. and specific allegation is reported against him–He has absconded for 26 months–There are as many as three eye-witnesses who have fully supported prosecution case in their 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements–Offence falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.–Application dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1154
36. Offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–Ground that applicants were declared innocent during investigation by ANF authorities, thus, were placed in Column II–Held: Opinion of a police officer or an investigating agency is not binding upon Courts–Held further If trial Court upon examination of material comes to a just conclusion that accused left off during investigation or thereafter by prosecution under Section 169, Cr.P.C., they could be legally joined as co-accused by trial Court–Bail refused. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1346
37. Offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995:- Petitioner being woman her case is covered by proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C. and no prosecutor has been appointed by Federal Government, therefore, no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in sight–Petitioner admitted to bail PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 349 It is settled principle of law that at bail granting stage material available on record is to be sifted through in order to establish whether prima facie petitioner before Court can be connected to crime in question and hence no detailed inquiry is to be conducted by Court–Tentative assessment of evidence in hand of prosecution would prima facie show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner has committed crime with which he is being charged and would not be entitled to concession of bail by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 133 1988 MLD 1730 Lah; 2000 PCr. L.J. 917 Pesh; 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 657 Kar; 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1222 Pesh; 2001 MLD 1922 Pesh. and 2001 SCMR 36; Recovery of 400 grams charas pistol with 50 live cartridges–Petitioner is directly nominated in F.I.R. for an offence which carries punishment falling under prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.–Petitioner has been apprehended at the spot and large quantity of charas and heroin has been recovered from his possession in addition to an unlicensed pistol of .30 bore and 50 live cartridges of same bore–A recovery memo to this effect has been prepared at spot which is duly witnessed by two police officials, included in contingent of complainant SIIO–All these circumstances are sufficient to provide grounds for believing that petitioner is prima facie connected with offence charged with. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 886 Contention that recovery has been effected in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C., Section 21 of CNSA, 1997 is complete answer to this objection–As far as objection that ASI was not competent to conduct investigation and while proceedings are illegal, Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as State vs. Zafar Ahmad (PLD 1997 SC 480) has already held that incompetence of police officer to investigate case was not sufficient to invalidate proceedings as envisaged under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C–Contention that offence was defined in two different statutes–In such situation last statute will prevail and CNSA is last statute, which provides 7 years imprisonment for offence–Case not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.CGrant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception, but it does not mean that offence is bailable and discretion still rests with Court, which has to be exercised keeping in view of facts and circumstances of each case– PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 519
38. Offence under Customs Act 1969–Recovery of 400 Tolas of gold–Bail–Prayer for–Seizing officer and Mashirs have fully implicated applicant and maintained recovery as affected–Import of gold is permissible but it is to be according to rules of its import–Act of sumggling cannot be taken at par with import–Sifting of evidence at bail stage is neither permissible nor possible–Evidence on record supports prosecution version–Gold so seized is in commercial quantity–Carrier, solely on this ground, is not entitled to lenient treatment–Held: There is no merit in bail application–Bail refused. PLJ 1993 Cr. C (Karachi) 461 punishable under clause (8), (9) (14) and (77) of section 156(1) of Customs Act 1969–Collector and applicant (Assistant Collector) had played vital role in clearance of 11 containers–Was role of applicant similar to that of Collector–Question of–Applicant was working under Collector and had attempted to get containers released under instructions of Collector–May be so, but admittedly there is no convincing evidence except hear-say evidence and even if it is believed that applicant had done so, he had obeyed orders of his senior only to extent of conveying message–Whether such an act can be treated an attempt to commit an offence–It needs not to be commented upon at bail stage because it can either damage case of prosecution or applicant–Co-accused is granted bail by trial court–Applicant is neither previous convict nor alleged to be a criminal–He is to be treated a responsible officer of C.B.R. no matter he has been nominated as an accused in F.I.R.–To be an accused does not mean to be a criminal–Held: Case of applicant as an exception justifies court to exercise its powers to grant interim bail instead of granting protective bail, which is confirmed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 661 Grant of–Prayer of–Name of applicant is not mentioned in FIR–His co-accused were granted pre-arrest bail–No proceedings were taken by trial court in five years old pending case for declaring applicant as absconder–Nothing was recovered from applicant–No notice was ever served upon applicant regarding pendency of case in Court–Four witnesses cited in charge sheet could be examined within one day as they belonged to Customs House Karachi–There is nothing to show whether any action was taken by State Bank against applicant–It was pointed out by prosecution that no sufficient evidence had come on record to connect him with this incident–There are no reasonable grounds for believing that applicant has committed non-bailable offence, but there are more than sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt–Held : Grant Of bail to applicant is not concession but a right to be released on bail–Bail allowed in circumstances. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1282 It is necessary that before treating accused to be absconder or fugitive from Law, especially for purpose of rejecting bail application, Court is required to take into consideration all factors such as evidence on record or to be produced by prosecution to support abscondence of accused; proceeding taken by Court under sections 87 and 88 Cr. P.C.; stand taken by accused after his arrest; any evidence in rebuttal available with prosecution regarding stand of accused at time of dealing bail applications of such accused etc. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1282 Applicant intercepted at Air-port on his arrival from Dubai–Recovery of 303.51 Tola of Gold–Contentions, co-accused already granted bail by trial court–Case of dishonest investigation–Statements of recovery witnesses recorded after 5 days of arrest–Held : Accused named in promptly lodged F.I.R.–Case of co-accused is quite different and distinguish as no recovery has been alleged against him–Investigation conducted by another officer and not the complainant–Mashirnama of recovery also fully supports case of prosecution, mashirs are admittedly of locality–Offence falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C.–Rule of consistency not applicable–No substance in bail application–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1556 A huge quantity of gold weighing ten thousand Tolas has been recovered from vehicle by which petitioners were travelling–Petitioner No.1 claimed to be owner of recovered gold having purchased it from Lahore–Purchase of such a huge quantity of gold, cannot be for a reason other than its sale in a country where it can fetch more money–Held: Reasonable grounds exist to show that petitioner No.1 is guilty of offence punishable under Section 156(1)(8) of Customs Act with imprisonment for 14 years–Held further: Petitioner No.2 being carrier is liable for offence punishable under Section 156(1)(89) and his case is not covered by prohibition contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail refused to petitioner No.l but allowed to petitioner No.2. PLJ 1993 Cr.C.(Karachi) 337
39. Offence under Explosive Substances Act, 1908 –Petitioner was apprehended while carrying a bag who tried to escape after seeing police picket–Petitioner was over-powered at the spot and upon search two live handgrenades were recovered from the bag which he was carrying–Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 has no force–According to the proviso to Section 10 where a child of the age of 15 years or above is arrested, the Court may refuse to grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child is involved in an offence which in its opinion, is serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal or is sensational in character–According to his own showing, the petitioner was almost 17 years of age–He had to be overpowered by the police in order to recover two live handgrenades–Contention of petitioner that petitioner does not fall under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is also not prima facie correct–In view of above, petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 644
40. Offence under Explosives Act–Bail–Prayer for–Admittedly, there is no evidence against applicant (in Cr.BA.No.192/93) except that he is shown to have been involved in confession of co-accused (applicant in Cr.BA.No.895/92)–It is now settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction cannot be legally sustained on basis of confession of co-accused without any other evidence–Held: Only evidence against applicant (in Cr.BA.192/93) being confession of co-accused, case for grant of bail is made out. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Karachi) 402 There is no absolute rule that tentative assessment of legality or otherwise of a judicial confession cannot be considered at bail stage–In view of the surrounding circumstances, it is unsafe even at bail stage to place unconditional reliance on judicial confession and reject bail application of applicant (in Cr.BA.No.895/92)–Held: Case for bail is made out in respect of applicant (in Cr.BA.No.895/92) despite prosecution having his judicial confession–Bail allowed to applicants in both applications. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Karachi) 402
41. Offence under Illicit Arms Act, 1991, read with Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 S. 13 & 14–Illicit arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from house of petitioner are not of type as would fall within ambit of Section 2 (iv) of Illicit Arms Act, instead those are of type which would fall within ambit of Section 2 (v), Illicit Arms of Act, 1991 which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years and extreme punishment can only be awarded when antecedents of accused so justify–High Court doubts that petitioner is likely to be awarded an extreme penalty–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 192 Non-production of notification by AAG u/S. 4 of Illicit Arms Act 1991–Effect–In absence of any notification, petitioner cannot be said to have contravened any order of Federal Government–Petitioner would be prosecuted under ordinary law i.e. under Section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, which entails punishment upto three years–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 689
42. Offence under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960–Language used by accused in his letter found indicative of sloppy reverence to his “Peer” and not derogatory qua Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) or Hazrat Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1607
43. Offence under Narcotic Control of Substances Ordinance, 1995–Charas–Recovery of–Recovered charas has not been sent to Examiner for report and offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1449 Perusal of case diaries would show that Court orders are not complied with for no sound reasons–Applicant has remained in continuous custody for a period of nearly two and half years and as expressed by High Court in an earlier decision passed in another case Special Court which is now sole Court for entire Karachi Division is seized of more than 1000 cases–Keeping in view pace of progress even in cases containing Court direction and keeping in view unreported decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Court is inclined to grant bail to applicant- PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 646 Although narcotic drug was not recovered from petitioner No. 3 and only two `thans’ of foreign cloth were recovered from him, but he being head of group including his wife and sister-in-law (petitioner No. 1 & 2) who was carrying 2.05 kilo grams of heroin, therefore, none of them would deserve to be released on bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 707
44. Offence under P.P.C. read with S. 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act and S. 4-C of Anti-Terrorist Act–Involvement of accused not shown in any other case–No injury has been ascribed to him or to any one of police officials or any other public man–He is in jail since registration of case and does not appear to have been produced before any court so far–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1606 No empty of any pistol or rifle was recovered from spot–Had as many as 11 shots been fired, at least some empties must have been secured from spot–Absence of any such empty makes case of petitioners open for further enquiry–Both petitioners are daughter and father and are in jail for six months–Presence of petitioners at place of occurrence has not been denied–But their contention is that they had contacted complainant for marriage of Mst. S. in accordance with agreement–There is no denial of execution of such agreement on part of complainant–All these facts make case of petitioners open for further inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C (Lahore) 1743 Contention of accused was that case against him was false and he had been involved in case in background of enmity as disclosed in F.I.R.–Accused further contended that it was a case of three versions which required adjudication; no specific part was assigned to him and that it was a case of general allegation–F.I.R. had revealed that only `Lathis’ were used in occurrence and no automatic or semi-automatic weapon of any common pattern was used in commission of crime–Nothing incriminating had been secured from possession of accused–Offence alleged against accused was not punishable, beyond seven years and was out of prohibition contained in S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.–Co-accused had been granted bail and case of accused was identical to case of coaccused–Accused was entitled to grant of bail in .view of principle of consistency–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1095 No recovery of stolen property was effected from accused–Accused had not been subjected to identification test through any of inmates of house who were present at time of incident–No plausible expination for registration of F.I.R. after 27 days–Apart from pointation to place of incident by accused no other admissible evidence had been collected by police against them–Case of accused needed further inquiry as regards their involvement in offence of Harabah–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1239 17(3) read with S. 147/148/149 PPC–As per record elders of parties had Intervened and were making efforts to settle differences between accused and complainant party–Complainant party had no objection if bail was granted to accused as it would facilitate resolution of long-dawn dispute between parties–Complainant and two injured persons present in Court had made a statement under their signature duly supported by affidavit in which they had confirmed statement of accused and had stated that possibility existed for resolving controversy–State Counsel also stated that granting of bail will be in aid of bringing gap between parties–Accused admitted to bail. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 936
45. Offence under Pakistan Penal Code, 1860–Applicant was allegedly caught by complainant party at place of incident alongwith gun and live cartridges–At bail stage, it cannot be said that he is not guilty of offence with which he stands charged–With regard to remaining five accused/applicants, they are alleged to have run away after complainant party chased them to apprehend them and though they are said to have fired from their respective fire-arms on complainant party, yet, no injury was suffered by any body from complainant party–Accordingly, remaining five applicants admitted to bail–PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 489 Offence Ss. 337-A II/337-LII/34 of P.P.C.–Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by Medical Evidence–Offence not punishable with ten or more years–No explanation regarding injuries has been offered by prosecution–Who is aggressor or aggressed, is a material question–Petitioner is no further required by police for investigation–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 878 Offence U/s 337-A (ii)/337-L(ii)148 and 149 PPC–Petitioner is alleged to have inflicted one blow with hatchet and did not repeat it–There is no question of forming an unlawful assembly as accused persons were already raising construction of wall and had not arrived there within purview of definition of “unlawful assembly” and that offence does not fall within prohibited clause–Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule and refusal an exception–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 774 Penetration is essential ingredient of section 377 P.P.C. and mere seminal stain on clothes of victim in presence of sperms round anal area did not mean that essential ingredients of offence i.e. penetration was satisfied–Held, Prima facie matter need further inquiry–Admitted to Bail– PLJ 1996 Cr. C Lahore 250 Purpose of petitioner and his co-accused was to commit sodomy and not abduction–Had they intended to abduct victim, they would not have brought him back to his hosue–Held, Section 12 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 shall not be applicable– PLJ 1996 Cr. C Lahore 250 Offence U/S 377 read with Ss. 497/98 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898–Bail–Prayer for–Story narrated by victim is that he was subjected to unnatural lust forcibly by three persons turn by turn but according to medical certificate there were no marks of violence on his parts of body–It was further observed by medical officer that there were no semen stain or blood stain–Observation of doctor negates version of victim–Held, Positive report of chemical examiner was of no help to prosecution- PLJ 1996 Cr. C Lahore 250 Petitioner was caught red-handed after he had opened door of car by removing canvas cloth with which it was covered–This is second case against him of same nature–Recovery of instruments i.e. keys of different vehicles, fuel tank lockers and registration books would also show that no person would normally keep them until and unless he has an axe to grind–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 26 General Power of Attorney undoubtedly is valuable security, but real question for determination shall he whether this valuable security was forged document constituting offence u/S 467 PPC and evidence of forgery against petitioners is available to connect them with commission of offence–No explanation is offered for not initiating criminal .prosecution against petitioners immediately after acquiring knowledge about fraud–Held: Property involving large value itself is no ground to refuse bail–Held further: There being sufficient grounds for further inquiry, petitioners are directed to be released on hail. PLJ 1994 Cr.C (Lahore) 279 Interim Challan which was submitted before trial Court. has been treated as final which means investigation is complete–Offence u/s 420 was bailable and offence u/s 5(2) of Act II, 1947 is punishable with 7 years–It is settled law that where punishment is not transportation for life or death or 10 years imprisonment., bail becomes right, of accused–Entire evidence collected by prosecution is based on documents which are in possession of prosecution, hence there is no possibility of any tampering with. prosecution evidence–Beneficiary of contract, a co-accused has already been granted interim hail before arrest which was subsequently confirmed–ease calls further inguiry. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1359 There is prima facie strong circumstantial evidence against petitioner–In such sort of heinous crimes ocular evidence is never available–It is only circumstantial evidence coupled with extra judicial,confession, recovery of incriminating articles and identification parade which are to be tentatively examined, Held : Courts being an important limb of State has to apply a heavy role in curbing such tendency– PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore 267 Suppression of Terrorist Activities Special Courts Act, 1975–Petitioners were arrested on the spot when they were duly armed and there was no other evidence available on record to connect them with commission of offence–Arms Experts report was silent whether said Arms were in serviceable condition or not–Investigating Officer did not bother to collect any other price of evidence connecting accused with commission of offence–Quesion as to whether petitioners had assembled for preparation of dacoity or they were busy in gossip after Aftari would need further inquiry–So far as the applicability of Section 13 Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 and S. 4 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 was concerned same shall be seen after recording evidence–Keeping in view above facts bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1182 Accused already deposited amount of missing bags–Involvement of applicant in commission of offence is yet to be established by prosecution when evidence is recorded–Documents and relevant record is already with police–Challan has been submitted in concerned Court and accused is no more required to police–His case is distinguishable and on different footing from co-acused–In a such like case Supreme Court had confirmed interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier, as amount embezzled was deposited with Bank–Accused has already deposited amount allegedly misappropriated by him–Accused is a public servant and he is not likely to abscond–There appear no reasonable grounds to believe that accused has been guilty of offence with which he is charged–He is granted bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 375 Allegations made do carry ingredients of an offence u/Ss. 409/34 PPC read with Section 5(2) of PAC 1947–There appears to be sufficient material on record to sustain averments of wrong-doing on the part of several accused–Rules of procedure may have, consistently. been thrown over-hoard. apparently, for ulterior motives–All those interested appear to have acted in unison to perpetuate illegalities at cost of institution–No lenient attitude, therefore, is deserved–Application dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Kar.) 1322 Accused during broad daylight had barged into house of complainant alongwith his companions armed with lethal weapons in order to cause hurt–Accused was apprehended at spot after an encounter with police–Private Mohallah persons in their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. had fully implicated accused–Record did not show any enmity between prosecution witnesses and accused–Reaosnable grounds existed to believe accused being guilty of offence covered by prohibition contained in S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.–Bail declined. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1221 Petitioner was caught red handed while stealing–He detained by complainant in house and thereafter produced before police–Prosecution story is supported by other inmates of house–offence u/S. 457 PPC, that is, lurking trepass of a house for committing theft is punishable with sentence of 14 years imprisonment–Since merits of case does not justify grant of bail to petitioner compromise between parties cannot be taken to entitle petitioner to bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 595 Petitioner who was custodian of file and was also found responsible for forgery had been granted bail by High Court and case of petitioner was not distinguishable from case of co-accused who was already granted bail–Petitioner was also entitled same treatment–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 512 Prima facie there appears no reasonable ground for believing that petitioner has committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for 10 years but there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into guilt which would bring case of petitioner under section 497 sub-section 2 Cr.P.C.–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 853 It is true that offence does not fall within prohibitory clause and normally in such cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception–However, this is not a mandatory principle because each case has to be decided in light of its own merit–Petitioner is a top bureaucrat–Conclusion of investigation also shows that petitioner is involved in commission of offences shown in F.I.R.–There is nothing on record to show that petitioner is seriously ill so as to warrant his entitlement for bail as an exceptional case–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1262   To grant or refuse bail is discretionary with court–Ordinarily, a court of law leans in favour of grant of bail to a minor under age of 16 years, a woman or any sick or infirm person -Discretion has to be exercised judiciously–Allegation in FIR that petitioner No. 2 had teased complainant’s daughter, has not been supported by latter in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.–Admittedly petitioner No. 2 was below 16 years of age at time of occurrence–Held: Law of bail should not be stretched in favour of prosecution and should be liberally construed to provide relief to an accused person, who under law, is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty–Bail allowed to petitioner No. 2. PLJ 1992 Cr.C (Lahore) 441 PLJ 1974 Cr.C 442, PLJ 1978 Cr.C (Lahore) 424, and 1983 SCMR 1001 rel. 1990 PCrLJ 653 and 1991 PCrLJ 723 distinguished. Admittedly, complainant in cross case also received injuries during occurrence and it is yet to be determined which party was aggressor–Likewise, who, out of four accused, caused relevant injury will remain shrouded in mystry until evidence is recorded at trial–Held: Case against petitioners is of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C.(Lahore) 513 Prayer for–Petitioner is charged with offences of similar nature in a number of cases of various Police Stations–Held: Opinion can be formed about petitioner being a dangerous criminal–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C.(Peshawar) 313 Earlier plea of accused for his release on bail on account of delay had already been dismissed by High Court same was maintained by Supreme Court and further petition on the same ground was misconceived–Accused, however, had a right to pray to High Court for implementation of the direction issued by it for early disposal of the trial which had been discontinued on the joint request of parties due pendency of a transfer application in High Court which had since been dismissed–Entire prosecution evidence in case had been examined and some Court-witness was yet to be examined–Bail application was consequently dismissed with direction to Sessions Court for early disposal of the trial. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1127 Offence under S. 322, P.P.C. was though non-bailable, yet was not punishable with any period of imprisonment besides payment of Diyat–No express provision of law existed to show that such punishment would attract prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.–Bail allowed.PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1144 If prosecution witnesses resile from their previous statements and a reasonable doubt has been created with regard to guilt of accused, then case requires further enquiry for connecting accused with offence—Before such enquiry, when there are no reasonable grounds to believe accused to be guilty of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for 10 years, he should not be deprived of benefit of bail in view of embargo contained under S. 497–Dail allowed subject to furnishing surety bond- PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1232 Contention that petitioners were in lawful possession of disputed land and complainant party wanted forcibly to dispossess–Three persons were injured on petitioner’s side–A counter F.I.R. was registered for the same occurrence after 2.5 months–Held: Deeper appreciation about merits of case at bait stage is not desirable–Petitioners caused grievous injuries to victim on vital part of body with their respective pistols–There are no reasonable grounds to believe that offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. -Bail refused. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 116   Petitioner was incharge of two National Saving Centres and ultimate responsibility of manipulation in record lay with him–Case is still under investigation and no recovery could be effected yet–Held: A public servant, entrusted with public money, if commits offence like one in hand, he is not only guilty of offence against an individual but against whole society therefore, such offences must be met with heavy hands–Held further: Petitioner does not deserve concession of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Lahore) 23 Provisions of Section 416 PPC do not envisage that a person must represent himself to be another specific or identified person by name — Expression doctor is also supposed to be a person and petitioner did claim himself to be a doctor which he was not — His conduct falls within ambit of definition of impersonation — Held: It cannot be said that offence punishable under Section 419 PPC was not attracted in case of petitioner — Held further: Conduct of petitioner in not only dishonestly claiming himself to be a qualified doctor but also in practising medicines and playing with health and lives of people for 30 years, is not a conduct entitling him to concession of bail. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Lahore) 202 Trial Court appears to have fallen in error in assuming that factum of dollars being forged, was conclusively established–In fact, prosecution itself is not sure about genuineness or otherwise of seized dollars–Genuineness or otherwise of seized dollars can only be ascertained in U.S.A.–Section 489-D speaks about making or possessing instruments or material for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes–Held: No reliable evidence is available on point of making or possessing instruments or material for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes–Held further: There is hardly any difference in case of applicant and co-accused who have already been granted bail–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C.(Karachi) 36 Accused was father-in-law of victim lady who was set on fire by sprinkling kerosine oil on her person at hands of her husband–Accused was specifically named by victim in her statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.–Negative role of accused made him liable to be an accomplice and it appeared that it was with connivance of and at instigation of accused that co-accused ablazed victim–Offence being punishable with imprisonment for ten years accused did not deserve any sympathy or leniency–Bail refused. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 257 As for as application of Section 324 PPC is concerned, it. is argued by learned counsel that petitioner and his companions if really intended to commit murder there was nothing to prevent them from accomplishing their design–Similarly, argument that no empty was recovered from place of occurrence, prima facie, negates prosecution version–As regards remaining sections, it is argued that same are not covered by prohibitory clause and general rule is that bail is allowed to an accused-person especially when he has undergone a substantive part of confinement in Jail–Medico legal report-examined and find that an injury i.e. ghayrjafiah mudihah has been caused–Same is punishable upto five years–Offence under Section 452 PPC is also not hit by prohibitory clause–Considering that petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last more than six months, has no criminal antecedents and he cannot be kept in confinement as a matter of punishment–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1227 Attraction of section 324 PPC would be a question of further inquiry as Medical Officer has opined that injury is Shqjjah-Mudihah which prima facie attracts section 337-A (ii) PPC–An offence not falling with prohibitory clause, acceptance of bail is a rule and its rejection is an exception–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 756 Contentions that injuries were on non-vital parts of body, that intention to kill was lacking, that motive was not disclosed in F.I.R. and that no offence under S. 324, P.P.C., was made out had already been considered by High Court in order whereby previous bail application of accused was dismissed and same could not be decided afresh–Delay per se in lodging report was no ground for grant of bail–Detention of accused in jail for last six months did not entitle him to bail as statutory period in such cases was one year–Non-mention of name of assailant in column of history in medico-legal certificate was of no importance as Medico-legal Officer was not an eye-witness of occurrence–Non-appearance of injured witness for re-X-Ray examination and non-repetition of the fire by accused being matters requiring deeper appreciation of evidence could not be evaluated at bail stage–Opinion of State Counsel was not binding on Court which was required to adjudicate matter in accordance with law with good conscience–Bail dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1163 From available material it cannot be gathered that petitioner attempted to commit murder–It was alleged in F.I.R. that petitioner caused injuries with a dagger but instead a razor was recovered–Held Case needs further inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1710 Co-accused, a real brother of petitioner was granted bail, primarily because, it was yet to be determined as to who was aggressor–It is true, that normally abscondence of an accused person disentitles him from concession of bail, yet if an accused person is purposely not arrested by investigating agencies and declared an absconder, then failure of investigating agencies to perform their statutory duty cannot be allowed to be used against an accused person–Bail granted– PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 985 Previous enmity–Versions contained in two different F.I.Rs.–Contention of petitioner finds support from statement made by petitioner soon after his arrest by police–Petitioners case becomes that of thither inquiry–Petition accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1320 Applicant was alleged to have caught hold of injured by arm and no overt not was attributed to applicant–In a case reported in P.L.D. 1963 (West Pakistan) Karachi 118 High Court had held that “Even Devil knoweth not heart of man” and it cannot be said at bail stage that what was in mind of applicant who had only caught hold of injured by arm and thus his case was falling within purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., particularly when co-accused had been placed in Column No. 2 of challan copy–Applicant prima facie, made out good case for grant of bail–Bail granted.PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1180 FIR was promptly lodged–Names of applicants appear in FIR alongwith specific parts assigned to them–They were properly identified in the light of electric bulbs–Besides this, seven empties of 12 bore cartridges were secured from place of Wardat and two guns, one from each of applicants, were also recovered–Offence is punishable with capital charge–No background of enmity has been alleged in FIR and as such false implication of applicants is out of question–Both applicants were alleged to be armed with guns and were said to have fired on two persons and as a consequence of said firing, one Pad died whereas other sustained injuries by means of fire-arms—Arguments of learned counsel for applicants that besides gun shot injuries, deceased had also sustained injuries by means of hard blunt substance for which there is no explanation in FIR, has no force for reason that it was a case of grappling/free fight between complainant and accused and presence of such kind of superficial injuries appears to be natural–In the circumstances, it cannot be termed as a case of conflict between ocular version and medical evidence, but, on the contrary, ocular version of eye-witnesses is corroborated by medical evidence–Keeping in view above narrated scenario bail application dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1322 In basis of delay in reporting matter to police by complainant a valuable right has been acquired and derived by petitioner for purpose of admission to bail especially when police has declared co-accused as innocent who has been eclipsed from list of accused persons–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1080 FIR would show that Petitioner as being , assailant alongwith his companions had been repeating dagger blows and same had landed on vital parts meaning thereby he had this knowledge that due to assault on vital parts of body with dangerous weapon he may be guilty of Qatl-e-Amd if death of injured person had been caused–Besides nature of injuries/ selection of seat of injury also determines intention and knowledge of assailant–In this regard weapon used in occurrence carries much importance to attract provisions of Section 324 PPC petition being without merits is dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 248 Injuries on the person of Manzoor have been declared simple–Although there was a fracture on the left arm of Mst. Gulzar Mai yet it was on her non-vital part of body–Offence does not falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. (1)–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1707 Both parties were bound down by Magistrate under Section 107/150, Cr.P.C. because they were apprehending breach of peace–Held : Petitioner has taken law in its own hand by inflicting injury with sharp edged weapon selecting vital part of body of complainant, therefore petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 832 Trial has commenced, two witnesses have been examined and their cross-examination stands reserved as defence counsel was absent–Once again five prosecution witnesses were present but they could not be examined due to non-availability of defence counsel–At bail stage any decision regarding merits of case has to be seriously avoided lest it may prejudice case of either of parties before trial Judge where trial has -already commenced–Delay in trial is being occasioned due to conduct of defence counsel–only point on merit which needs examination is impact of delayed statements of two witnesses implicating accused with commission of offence of murder of deceased apart from allegation levelled by S in FIR that deceased was taken to Dera of petitioner–Any expression of opinion on main case is definitely going to affect merits of case which trial Judge is seized of–There is no need to enter into controversy whether two cases now pending against petitioner brings him within ambit of term “Desperate and Hardened Criminal”–Since trial has commenced, witnesses of prosecution have been examined petitioner instead of pursuing instant application for bail should monopolise his full attention towards progress of his case before trial Judge–Application for bail,,therefore, stands rejected. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1231 From certificate of Medical Board and copy of birth certificate, it appears that petitioner was below age of 16 years at time of occurrence–He is in Jail for about 7 months–Even in cases punishable with death or transportation for life, an accused below age of 16 years, can be released on bail–Held: There is no compelling circumstance to refuse concession of bail ‘to petitioner more particularly when he is in Jail for last seven months and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment–Bail allowed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Lahore) 70 Accused had allegedly committed sodomy with a school-going boy of tender age by putting him in fear of death on pistol point alongwith his companions–Act complained against accused was confirmed by medical examination of victim–Delay in making report to police of occurrence had been properly explained in F.I.R.–Record did not show case being an outcome of enmity–Case against accused was one ,of involving moral turpitude and it was high time when Courts, in spite of going into technicalities, should restore confidence of people by implementing law in its true perspective according to the cannons of Islam–Bail declined. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1161 Accused had allegedly committed sodomy with a school-going boy of tender age by putting him in fear of death on pistol point alongwith his companions–Act complained against accused was confirmed by medical examination of victim–Delay in making report to police of occurrence had been properly explained in F.I.R.–Record did not show case being an outcome of enmity–Case against accused was one ,of involving moral turpitude and it was high time when Courts, in spite of going into technicalities, should restore confidence of people by implementing law in its true perspective according to the cannons of Islam–Bail declined. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1161 Offences U/Ss. 379 and 411 PPC are not punishable with imprisonment for life or 10 years, grant of bail in such like cases is rule and refusal an exception–Petitioner is not a previous convict and there exist no circumstance justifying refusal of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1144 Direction of High Court for completion of trial within two months was not complied with for which accused were not responsible–Petitioners were in custody for last more than ten manths–Proceedings before lower Court amount to abuse of process of Court–Question whether from evidence collected during investigation offence under S. 411, P.P.C. was made out or the accused were liable under S. 458/380/392, P.P.C. was yet to be determined–Accused were in judicial lock-up and were no more required for further investigation and were not previous convicts–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 893 Accused applicant was granted pre-arrest bail by High Court in various crimes–Name of accused/applicant does not appear in F.I.R.–Evidence so far collected by prosecution is documentary in nature, which is in possession of prosecution prama facie same cannot be tampered with by accused/ applicant at this stage–Series of cases initiated by prosecution against applicant and granting him bail by Court, supports version of learned counsel for applicant that government of days due to political differences wants to harass. humiliates and torture applicant, by involving him in cases–Held : Prima focie case of accused requires further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- Karachi 620 Taking out petrol from Government vehicles and selling out illegally–Allegation of–There are two basic requirements of S. 409 PPC, entrustment or dominion over property by a person in his capacity as a public servant-There was no entrust to petitioner (owner of petrol pump) neither did he have any dominion over property in question, therefore, it is a matter of serious doubt as to whether S. 409 PPC will have any application–Section 411 PPC is punishable with 3 years and does not fall within prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of S. 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1491 Evidence consists of official cool which has been taken into possession by raiding party–Thus there is no possibility of its tampering by petitioner Offences alleged against petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and petitioner being a Government. Servant. is allowed bail-Bail allowed.PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1116 It is basic principle of law that bail is not to be refused as punishment merely on allegation that a person has committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose his complicity–Wisdom behind it is that if an accused, is finally acquitted, how can he be compensated for his detention in judicial lock-up during trial–Therefore, law allows concession of bail to accused person. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (AJ&K) 1206 A person accused of is not to be deprived of his liberty unless interest of proper investigation and trial and those of society cannot be protected without doing so–Seriousness of offence and strength of evidence are not themselves, relevant for purpose of deciding whether liberty of a person who is presumed not to be guilty, is to be taken away or not–Those are relevant only indirectly in so far they may have bearing on strength of his desire to defeat a proper inquiry into his offence. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (AJ&K) 1206 Bail under section 497 Cr.P.C. is refused if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life–But if it appears, at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail–Held: Case of petitioner requires further probe into his guilt, as such is of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (AJ&K) 1206 This is a case of further inquiry inasmuch as petitioner did not physically participate in incident–He was also found to be innocent by Investigating Agency–Mere presence at spot and receipt of cut off arm of complainant would not deprive petitioner of bail facility–Held: Petition is converted into appeal and allowed. PLJ 1996 SC 796 Reasons for grant of bail–Petitioner was making effort to forcibly remove shalwar of Mst. Sajida–It can safely be expressed that Mst. Sajida was not made naked by petitioner-accused who may be liable prima facie U/S 354 PPC which is bailable–For purpose of attraction of Article 18 read with Article 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 both victim and accused have to be seen without their respective shalwars–PW’s did not support prosecution version who had submitted their affidavits exonerating petitioner–Complainant and Mst. Sajida are interested witnesses–Independent witnesses have exonerated petitioner and thus his involvement has become a question of further inquiry–It is surprising that alleged occurrence took place at 6.00 p.m. on 28.9.1995 and section 456 PPC has been mentioned in F.I.R.–Prima facie section 451 is applicable which is bailable–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 953 Matter with regard to agreement in question is subjudice before a Civil Court; that no recovery of alleged agreement has been effected from petitioners despite being remained on physical remand; that alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. there is a delay of almost 16 years in lodging FIR; that petitioners are father and sons and they are also closely related to (complainant’s wife) alleged executant of document in question; that one Petitioner was an ailing old man of more than 60 years; that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail that one of Pws did not support at all prosecution case; and that challan has been submitted to learned trial Court but commencement of early trial in near future is not in sight–Keeping in view these facts bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 392 Accused were related to complainant, explanation offered by complainant did not appear to be unreasonable–Had F.I.R. not been mere concoction it was not difficult for complainant to show registration of case with promptness–Accused had been produced in Court pursuant to a direction–He was a tall young boy with not less than 5′-6″ height–Age of accused recorded in school certificate did not appear to be correct–This observation shall not be used for any other purpose–Prima facie, there were reasonable ground to believ that petitioners had committed offences with which they had been charged fell within prohibitory clause–Bail petition dismissed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 176 Petitioner is behind bars for last 9 months approximately: that despite his being remained on physical remand for 14 days with police, no recovery could be effected from him that there is a delay of 22 days in lodging FIR without any explanation particularly when comploinant. allegedly cognized petitioner at the time of occurrence; that recovery of alleged looted amount was effected from three other persons who have also been involved in such )ike cases previously but petitioner does not have any reputation of involvement in this type of cases any other criminal activity; that petitioner had earlier move an application against complainant before Incharge Monitoring Cell, for registration of criminal case which was duly’ entertained so possibility of involving petitioner by complainant by way of counter blast to said application cannot be lightly ignored—Considering all facts bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 938 Minute details of features of petitioners were to given in FIR. by complainant but they were, however, identified by complainant when they were taken into custody by police upon suspicion alongwith Taxi Car and other articles of complainant–As such petitioner prima facie is liable for offences–It was a night time robbery committed in the garb of passengers while hiring a taxi car from complainant, but deprived him of his belongings on pistol point–There is no extenuating ground so as to admit petitioner to bail–Bail refused. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 872 It is settled law that in a case calling for further inquiry into guilt of an accused person bail is to be granted to such an accused person as of right and not by way of grace or concession–Bail is sometimes refused to an accused person on consideration of commencement of a trial but that consderation is based purely upon propriety-Whenever a question of propriety is confronted with a question of right latter must prevail–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 185 Applicant is behind bars for more than one and a half year and there is no fault at his door towards delay–Evidence against applicant is Identification Parade which has been held after 16 days of occurrence and no explanation is being furnished by prosecution with regard to delay–No role has been ascribed during Identification Parade by complainant that what role was committed by’ applicant during commission of offences when he claims to have seen applicant, yet no role has been described during identification parade–Prosecution has collected weakest type of evidence against applicant in shape of Identification Parade which too has been held after inordinate delay–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 964 Applicants belonged to Ahmedi sect and they were Kafirs—Therefore, they had no right to have verse of Holy Quran written on glass of speedo-meter dial of motor-cycle–Allegation of–Owner of motor-cycle Faiz Muhammad has claimed that sticker of Holy verse was placed by him on motor-cycle and that motor-cycle was in his possession on day of incident–He claims that he is not Ahmadi or Qadiani, therefore, no offence appears to have been committed by placing sticker on motor-cycle even if motor cycle is found in possession of applicants–Held: It is a case of further enquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 542 Petitioner was declared innocent by police during investigation and with approval of DSP, his case was recommended for dis-charge–Petitioner did not cause any injury to deceased–Injury allegedly attributed to petitioner on person of Injured P.W. is on right lower part of thigh which, according to medico-legal report, is declared as “Ghy Jaifah Badi’ah” and is punishable with three years R.I–Question of sharing common intention by petitioner alongwith other co-accused can only be determined by trial Court after recording evidence–Prima facie, case of petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C–Grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is exceptional accordingly, petitioner is admitted to bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1392 No effective role is attributed to petitioner in causing death–Both witnesses have given one version that a few days prior to occurrence they saw accused sitting under ‘Berry’ tree and conspiring murder of deceased as he had become nuisance for them and that he had insulted their women folk–There is no mention of motive part of prosecution story in afore referred statements–There is no explanation as to why both these witnesses remained mum for a couple of days and did not inform complainant or police about conspiracy of murder–Even otherwise, prima facie, it is repellent to commonsense that accused would conspire at an open place and within hearing of witnesses–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 262   Bail–Prayer for–Petitioner, admittedly, did not possess any licence to drive vehicle in question–His driving such a vehicle, was an unlawful act–Submission that offence allegedly committed by petitioner did not fall within purview of Qatl-Bis-Sabab and was thus not punishable under Section 322 PPC, is without merit–Offence under Section 322 PPC is not bailable–According to investigation, it was petitioner and not any other person engaged as driver, who had caused death of deceased, and there is no material or reason not to act upon prima facie finding of Investigating Officer–Delay in commencement of trial has still not ripened into statutory delay to entitle petitioner to be released on bail–It cannot be said that merely because offence was punishable with Diyyat only, petitioner could not be lodged in Jail–Bail refused. PLJ 1994 Cr.C.(Lahore) 77 Keeping in view nature and seats of injuries, which are all simple and not on vital parts, it can safely be inferred that prima facie there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused had committed offence with which they are being charged–Petitioners should not be kept behind bars indefinitely as punishment before trial–Their case is definitely of further inquiry into their guilt–Even otherwise, petitioners have been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year and conclusion of trial is not yet in sight–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1361 It is conceded that there is no eye-witness in this case and F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 24 days for which no sufficient explanation has been furnished–Case of applicant requires further inquiry–Held: On tentative assessment of evidence, applicant is entitled to grant of bail–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Note 86 Ex-facie use of expressions (URDU) does not create any feelings of hurt, offence or provocation in Muslims or for anyone else–These expressions are not derogatory to Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to Muslims–Held: In view of serious question requiring examination in depth, and offences being punishable with ten years imprisonment or death, an authoritative pronouncement is called for which is to take place at trial–Petition converted into appeal and impugned order set aside. PLJ 1993 SC 1 Case was referred to Police with a delay of 15 days, that offence under Section 379 PPC does not fall within prohibitory clause whereupon acceptance of bail is a rule and its rejection is an exception and that stolen buffalo stands recovered–On this score petitioners are held entitled to be admitted to bail–It would be instructive to express that a bail application has to be disposed of within frame work of Section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure and not on basis of material which is neither available nor relevant in matter–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1481 Applicant was a peon of Judicial Magistrate and case property was stolen (surety documents)–Offence was not punishable with death life, imprisonment or ten years and co-accused arrested by police was let off–Biased view could not be taken because Court record was stolen–Bail allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1226 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–It is a fact that some articles in all four criminals cases are alleged to have been recovered from applicant–Contentions of learned counsel for applicant that since case against applicant would fall only under Section 411 PPC with punishment which is punishable for three years and that same does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., applicant is entitled to grant of bail keeping in view dictum laid down in case of Tariq Bashir PLD 1995 SC 34–Case against applicant is that some stolen articles have been recovered from his possession in not less than four cases which sufficiently establish tendency of mind of applicant and his attitude to repeat commission of like offences–Held : Case shall be attracted by exception mentioned in Bashir Tariq’s case in clause (c) where there is apprehension of accused tampering with prosecution evidence–Keeping in view above stated law bail application dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 160   Contention that Darood (PBUH) printed on invitation cards in question was meant for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, has not been controverted by petitioners’ counsel–Held: There are reasonable grounds for believing that. petitioners have committed an offence under Section 295-C of PPC which falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C.—Held further: Petitioners do not deserve concession of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C.(Lahore) 427 From contents of FIR it is evident that petitioner N was armed with iron rod whereas M petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and T was armed with knife–Accused/petitioner B has not been attributed any role in commission of offence as he has neither been attributed any injury to deceased nor to injured PWs–However T petitioner has been attributed , role of causing injury to A, whereas N petitioner has been attributed role of catching hold of deceased and thereafter dragging him inside house where he was finally done to death–Had accused/petitioner N not caught hold of deceased and dragged him inside house, it could be possible that he may have saved his life–Thus role attributed to N cannot be equated with his co-accused B and T–Admittedly all accused were arrested on 11.6.1997 and are in judicial lock up (till 5.10.1999) since then and as such they have undergone a period of two years and 4 months in jail–There is no doubt that trial could not be started due to filing of writ petition by accused, but this fact will not disentitle accused/petitioners B and T to relief sought by them–Keeping in view role attributed to them and period of their detention, petition to extent of M and T is accepted and they are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 1-lac each with two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of trial Court–However petition to extent of N is dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1401 Petitioner was not put to identification parade and whether he committed offence under Section 382 PPC is a matter of further probe and inquiry, therefore, petitioner admitted to bail. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1127 Petitioner being a Government Servant was involved in a se of misappropriation of public money amounting Rs. 88,32,738 on account of bogus entries made by him in account books to help a gang which was operating to carry out such embazzlement–Offence of embezzlement of public money is punishable open imprisonment for life and as such, would fall within prohibitory clause–Mere fact that petitioners is a public servant and there is no likelihood of his absconsion cannot be taken into account at bail stage There is no extenuating circumstance so as to release petitioner on hail as he is involved in an offence falling within prohibitory clause. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1043 From M.L.R., prima facie, it cannot he ascertained that when injuries were suffered by petitioner–Offences are not punishable for 10 years or more–In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception–Although there was exceptional circumstances that injuries were given to a woman but since M.L.R. is creating some doubt therefore, petitioner admitted to bail. PLJ 2002 Cr,C. (Lahore) 1 Petitioner was arrested more than a year ago on and yet not a single witness has been recorded–On last date of hearing Court was informed that injured PW had left for Saudi Arabia to earn his living and, therefore, there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future–Police Officer present with record and directed to verify afore-referred fact–He has made a statement before Court that indeed, injured PW, had left for Saudi Arabia and his date of return was not known–A perusa] of order passed by learned trial Court reveals that none of prosecution witnesses attended Court–Nobody can he detained in jail for unlimited period–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 891 Greivous injury on vital part of body of victim i.e. forehead is attributed to petitioner A–He is, therefore, not entitled to bail at this stage whereas other two petitioners are ascribed injuries which are simple and on non-vital parts of body of victim–Question of vicarious liability would remain open and could only be gone into at the time of trial–Petitioner M is a known case of hypertension and has weak muscles due to Proximal Myopathy and pneumonic consolidation of right lung–It was observed by Medical Board that he was unable to sit or stand without support–In such a situation keeping in view his advance age it can be safely said that he is sick and infirm person and as such his case would fall within proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted except petitioner A–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 853 Identification of so called accused took place 29 days after occurrence–All persons who identified accused were police–It seems difficult to accept that an incident occurs in middle of night, in middle of no where and only light available is headlights of vehicle and when firing starts from accused side police returns fire and yet are able to identify these persons one month later–Human instinct for survival supercedes all acts of bravado if F.I.R. is to be believed then it is difficult to accept that police would try to identify accused and yet save themselves and also return fire–Lights of vehicle would be only directed towards place facing vehicles front side even if initially dacotis were spotlighted it would not be difficult for them to step aside into pitch darkness–In fleeting moment even if faces were not covered it is difficult to believe that they could be identified–It would be further difficult to believe that they could be identified a month later–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 644 Learned State counsel has stated that all of accused came armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, therefore, at bail stage their liability cannot be sagregated–Injuries attributed to petitioners also do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., discretion of bail should be extended to them, especially when they are behind bars for the last three months-Resultantly bail application} is accepted, petitioners are enlarged on bail provided they furnish security PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1384 Matter was reported to police after a delay of more than three days–All offences except offence under Section 367 PPC do not attract prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C–Although all accused were shown to be armed with pistol and guns yet complainant except Injury No. I are either on his elbow or on legs–Only Injury No. 1 was on left ear which was declared to be “Shula-e-Khafifa”–Whether any offence under Section 367 PPC, in circumstances of case, was committed or not would be determined by learned trial Court after recording evidence–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 941 KILLA (peg) made of wood is used for tethering cattle is used for murder–Its one side is blunt and other side is pointed and it is heavy in weight, therefore, blow on head with KILLA, its output may be death of victim, therefore, selection of seat of injury for causing of blow itself is an exception on basis of which. bail can be refused to assailants–Bail application rejected– PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 940 Petitioner is accused of having entered complainants house with a view to commit rape with his wife–To goodluck of complainant’s wife complainant reached house after daily labour and her honour was saved–There are four injuries on person of complainant and three injuries on person of his wife–These injuries prima facie indicate that latter offered resistance and former came to her rescue and both were given blows by petitioner–Neither before Additional Sessions Judge, nor before High Court, petitioner has given any reason as to why he should he falsely implicated–Even if offence alleged does not fall in prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, petitioner cannot ask for bail as of right–Alleged act reflects a desperate character and petitioner ex-facie is guilty of moral turpitude–Bail petition dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1093 Alleged offences do not fall within Prohibitory Clauses of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; that alleged injury is on non-vital part of body; that petitioner is behind bars for last more than three months; that application of petitioner for constituting a Medical Board to determine and verify nature of injury, has not been disposed of by competent authority with ulterior motive at the instance of complainant; that petitioner is previous non-convict and there is no likelihood of his influencing P.Ws; that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging FIR and medical examination of complainant was also conducted after period of 6 days–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 944 Accused had been charged for having caused stone injury to the complainant without specifying its mat and locale and it could not be asertained at bail stage as to which of three injuries was caused by the accused as all of them had been mused by blunt means–This kind of hurt apparently fell under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. which entail punishment Daman and five years’ R.I. as Tazir–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Peshawar) 544 Complainant Police Official had fired 50- shots from his rifle and other police constables also fired shots which were more than 200 shots, but it is surprising that only four empty bullets of 7.62 bore were found lying at wardat–F.I.R. reveals that one culprit was having a Rifle–Possibility of four empties of 7.62 bore belonging to said culprit cannot be ruled out–However, this point ,can be properly ascertained at time of trial–Encounter took place for about 25 minuets but no injury has been received by any members of police party–As regards attraction of provisions and ingredients of Sections 324 and 353 P.P.C. this point can be thrashed out by trial Court–At bail stage no definite finding can be given with regard to attraction of any of above mentioned provisions–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 485 Direction by High Court for recording of evidence within 3 month but neither evidence was recorded nor charge was framed–Compliance of directions of High Court could not ultimately be made for which there is no default on the part of applicant–Other ground that applicant has also completed a period of one year detention is however immaterial as it was not taken in trial Court–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 670 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 10/11/18–There is no allegation of zina or abduction against petitioner, who is real paternal uncle of abductee–Allegation against him is that he entered the room where abductee was allegedly detained by I a co-accused–He allegedly threatened her that she should marry aforesaid I–This fact has since been denied in affidavit sworn by complainant and abductee, therefore, the matter needs further inquiry–Petitioner allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 440 Petitioner was father of a girl who became pregnant as a result of illicit relations with someone–Role attributed to petitioner was only that he helped in burial of newly born baby and thus caused disappearance of evidence of offence–No other allegation was made out against him–He had not been charged with any offence falling within prohibitory clause–Trial of case is only to take considerably long period–In these circumstances, petitioner admitted to bail. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 177
46. Offence Under PPC:–Contention that there are contradictions between medical and ocular version–That cannot be gone into at pre-arrest bail stage–Guide-lines for grant of pre and post arrest bail have been provided by Lordships of Supreme Court that grant of pre-arrest bail means that accused is exempted from joining investigation–Petitioner has been on bail since from registration of F.I.R., recovery of alleged weapons of offence is yet to be made–Held: High Court is not inclined to extend concession of pre-arrest bail–Disposed of accordingly. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 539 Contention that there are contradictions between medical and ocular version–That cannot be gone into at pre-arrest bail stage–Guide-lines for grant of pre and post arrest bail have been provided by Lordships of Supreme Court that grant of pre-arrest bail means that accused is exempted from joining investigation–Petitioner has been on bail since from registration of F.I.R., recovery of alleged weapons of offence is yet to be made–Held: High Court is not inclined to extend concession of pre-arrest bail–Disposed of accordingly. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 539 Allegation of stolen of 5 buffalos worth Rs. 2,35,000/–Alleged recovery has taken place–Petitioners are behind bars and previous non-convict–Alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 501 According to version of eye-witnesses, petitioner was present at spot and physically committed crime–According to investigation, he was not present at spot although he was responsible for commission of crime which was committed at his instance and with his connivance–Held: It is yet to be determined as to which of two versions was/is correct–Bail allowed. PLJ 1991 Cr.C (Lahore) 446
47. Offence under Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 Recovery of 180 grams charas from one place and 1000 grams charas from another place with 50 grams heroin–Case of petitioners falls between line under clauses (b) and (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but while disposing of bail applications, lessor punishment prescribed for offence will be taken into consideration in case there is no likelihood of absconsion of accused and there is no apprehension of accused tampering with record–Bail allowed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 194 Application on basis of which FIR registered was moved on 4.1.2001, whereas, instant case has been registered on 21.1.2001 i.e. just after seventeen days of said application–Petitioner has no criminal history indicating his involvement in any narcotics case–Quantity of heroin, allegedly recovered from petitioner is only 514 grams–He is in jail for more than seven months–Plea of petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in view of personal grudge of SHO of same police station is not without force and makes it a case of further enquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1107 Registration of case against petitioner under Section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and under S. 9, Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997–Bail was refused to petitioner on the ground that quantity of contraband narcotics recovered from petitioner exceeded for more than one kilogram–Petitioner claimed that A.S.I could not register case under Section 6 to 9 of Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997–Such claim of petitioner was in terms of S. 21 of the Act which indicated that no official below the rank of Sub-Inspector could register such case–Petitioner has, thus, made out a case for bail in terms of S. 497 Cr.P.C. in as much as there was no bar in S. 497 Cr.P.C. against bail in cases registered under Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979–Petitioner was thus, entitled to bail which was granted to him on terms and conditions set out by High Court as to sureties. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 368 Heroin–Recovery of–Woman accused–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–A woman is no longer domesticated but hallow of respectability and modesty woven around the traditional woman is making her an easy conduit for many a under cover crimes–Courts may refuse hail if allegations are serious and particularly under S. 5J of Narcotics Substances Act which provides that “bail should not he normally granted”, criminal cases are not lacking where women were refused bail–Bail refused. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1642 Bail granted on considerations that investigation was not conducted by a duly authorized officer and that person of the accused was no more required for the purpose of investigation. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1638 It is an admitted position that raiding party basically belonged to a Police Station in which place of incident was not situated–Magistrate convicted appellant under Articles 3 as well as 4 of Prohibition Order to suffer different sentences–A person cannot be convicted under both Articles when matter arises out of one incident–It would have to be considered as to whether his conviction would be sustainable under Article 3 or Article 4–Held : Collective result of all these points would not justify to keep appellant in Jail till decision of these important points and it would be in interest of justice to grant him bail–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 259 Grant of bail–Prayer for–It is by now settled that reasonable period spent in pursuing application for bail which is not vexatious, does not come within mischief of an act or omission of accused or any other person acting on his behalf’ as contemplated in 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) of Cr.P.C.–Even if this period is excluded, there are no prospects of trial being completed within statutory period–Bail granted. Plj 1991 Cr.C (Peshawar) 335
48. Offence under Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979:- Active and major role has been attributed to accused A, who enticed away Mst. Z–Presence of petitioners at that time borne out from contents of F.I.R.–Abductee not recovered and whereabouts of co-accused, are not known–Petitioners being charged for commission of offences punishable with either description which may extend to seven years and being in jail less than two month and alleged abductee still not recovered, co-accused still at large, petitioners are not entitled to relief sought by them–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 856 No body has seen petitioner committing Zina with her co-accused–Husband of petitioner came to Pakistan on 25.12.1995 and case was registered on 10.1.1996 with an unexplained delay of 17 days–Petitioner was medically examined when her husband was present in Pakistan–No semen was sent to Laboratory for grouping which facility of course is available in Pakistan–This fact can validly be considered against prosecution even at stage of bail–Article 16 does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C.–Petitioner being a lady is entitled to grant of bail under first proviso to section 497(1) Cr. P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1197 Removal of condition–Prayer for–Bail was allowed to petitioner with condition that sureties should he related to her in prohibited degree–There was no justification at all to dovetail bail order with condition complained of–Relatives of petitioner have joined her husband with whom she is locked in civil litigation and she also apprehends danger to her life at their hands–Condition in question has indeed become a nightmare for petitioner because if it is not fulfilled, she will languish in jail and if it is satisfied, she may lose her life–Held: A case for removal of condition and modification of impugned order is made out–Petition accepted. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Peshawar) 478 Contention that F.I.R. was registered on 25.3.1997 and petitioner was arrested on 28.3.1997 yet final challan or interim challan has not so far been submitted by police to court which is violative of section 173 read with sections 154 and 344 Cr. P.C.–Further contended that. detention of petitioners has become illegal and petitioner is entitled to be released. at least. on bail–Since report/Interim report. was not submitted within time prescribed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. detention of petitioner in jail after period of fourteen days has become unlawful and is violative of Articles 9 & 10 of Constitution–Petitioners continued detention is held unlawful ‘ and he is released on bail–Petition accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1045 Reasons for admission of bail–(i) Principal accused has been admitted to bail by Court of Session and through attraction of rule of consistency petitioners are held entitled–There is no role of commission of Zina through force or by consent attributed to petitioner–Said role has been ascribed to principal accused–Abscondence of petitioners should not be a hurdle for their admission to bail–Allah Wasai is a female whose case is also covered by proviso to sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. for purpose of her admission to bail especially when principal accused has already been admitted to bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1212 No doubt petitioner is not named in F.I.R. but he has been involved by Mst. Dani material prosecution witness when her statement was recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. and subsequently her statement was recorded on same date U/S 161 Cr.P.C.–Petitioner is attributed role to this extent that he drove car and taken her to Gujrat alognwith co-accused, who committed zina-bil-jabr with Mst. Dani repeatedly–Contention that petitioner has not committed zina is also correct–However, involvement of petitioner is based on evidence of prosecutrix alone, who has not been examined by prosecution as yet–Conduct of petitioner indicates that he is a desperate criminal who has attacked on father of prosecutrix after four days of first occurrence and prior to his arrest–In case he is released on bail he is likely to tamper with prosecution evidence which is yet to be recorded–Held: High Court is not inclined to release petitioner on bail since challan is pending in court of Addl. Sessions Judge–Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 880 Petitioner’s counsel canvassed that as required under proviso to sub-section (1)(b) of section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure complete or incomplete challan has not been submitted inspite of fact that petitioner is behind judicial lock-up for last more than three months and thus he is entitled to be admitted to bail–Suffice it to express that yard-sticks for admission of an accused are mentioned in section 497 Cr.P.C. and non-submission of challan is no ground for admission of an accused to bail after arrest-Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1214 Petitioner’s counsel canvassed that as required under proviso to sub-section (1)(b) of section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure complete or incomplete challan has not been submitted inspite of fact that petitioner is behind judicial lock-up for last more than three months and thus he is entitled to be admitted to bail–Suffice it to express that yard-sticks for admission of an accused are mentioned in section 497 Cr.P.C. and non-submission of challan is no ground for admission of an accused to bail after arrest-Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1197 Abudctee specifically ascribed role of removal without her consent to Karachi and commission of zina-bil-jabr with her by petitioner–He has been found potent–Lady doctor medically examined abductee–Opinion of Chemical Examiner about vaginal swabs is positive to the effect that same are stained with semen–Involvement of petitioner is not a question of further inquiry-Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1214
49. Offence under Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–Matter was reported to police with delay of 7 days which cannot be taken lightly–Police did not take into possession torn clothes of complainant–Victim has not been got medically examined–Even petitioner has not been examined for his potency–Held : Involvement of petitioner in cage is a matter of further enquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lah.) 95 Admittedly, Nikah of Mst. Altaf Mai with Ali Muhammad, is prior in time to that of alleged Nikah claimed by petitioner No.1–Claim of Petitioner No.1 and his defence plea, prima facie do not carry any weight—This plea, in presence of material available on record, cannot be a ground for further inquiry to attract provisions of Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. – Conclusion of Investigating Officers regarding genuineness of Nikahnama and valid marriage of Petitioner No.1 with Mst. Altaf Mai, is not based on sound reason and material–Held: There is sufficient material to connect petitioner No.l with offence falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.—Application of Petitioner No.1 dismissed but bail allowed to Petitioner No.2. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Lahore) 341
50. Offence under Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance,1979–Further inquiry–Prosecution is seemingly equipped with sufficient material in different shapes to connect petitioner with commission of offence with which he stands charged–Tentative assessment of same, at this juncture does not lend any support to case of petitioner as reasonable grounds exist for believing that he has committed non-bailable offence of nature, which falls within prohibitory clause–Broadly speaking condition laid down in clause (2) of S. 497 Cr.P.C. is that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt which means that question should be such which has nexus with result of case and may show or lead to show that accused is not guilty of offence with which he is charged–Same is totally lacking which appears to be of great high-handedness allegedly shown by petitioner–Held : Petitioner cannot be taken to be entitled to concession asked for on pleas including of further inquiry–Application merits rejection. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1654
51. Offences Against property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance :– From amongst a total of nine, names of five accused persons had not been disclosed in the F.I.R— No Specific allegations had been levelled against the accused persons— Accused were participants of a crowd who had entered into the premises of a Company as alleged in the F.I.R—- Was not found out as to we was the particular person who had snatched the gun from the deceased police official and fired at him causing his death—Not possible at this stage to attribute fatal fire-arm injury to an of the nine accused persons—- As to allegations of violence against police officials, none of the police officials had been medically examined and no report was available on record to that effect— No incriminating article or weapon had been recovered for the accused persons— Challan against the accused had been submitted but charge had not been framed so far— Case of the accused calling for further inquiry, they were granted bail. PLD 2003 Kar. 60
52. Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 —Statement of witness who willingly offered and paid illegal gratification to public servant, whose job is not done should he viewed with caution–Practically. in case required and desired relief would have been procured by Complainant, lie would have kept quiet–Held: This aspect of matter has stolen eminence to hold that involvement of petitioner is of further inquiry’–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1576
53. Opinion of police— Contention that report of police is binding on Court–Held: There is no hard and fast rule with regard to binding of police opinion on Court–Each case has got peculiar circumstances–Name of present applicant appears with specific role and he has indulged in a very serious offence and has deprived complainant of golden ornaments and prima facie, there is sufficient evidence against him and there is involvement of applicant in crime–Bail application dismissed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 754 Contention that report of police is binding on Court–Held: There is no hard and fast rule with regard to binding of police opinion on Court–Each case has got peculiar circumstances–Name of present applicant appears with specific role and he has indulged in a very serious offence and has deprived complainant of golden ornaments and prima facie, there is sufficient evidence against him and there is involvement of applicant in crime–Bail application dismissed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 754

Petitioner had seen his sister in-law with his brother, in an objectionable position, therefore he had acted under the sting of grave and sudden provocation and killed both of them–Case of petitioner whether falls under clause (c) of S. 302 PPC–Question of–Reasonable grounds do exist for believing that petitioner is connected with offence charged with and as such not entitled to be extended benefit of bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1758 There is no eye-witness of occurrence–Doctor was not certain as to whether or not injury found on person of deceased, was ante-mortem–Evidence of last seen was recorded by police after eight and a half months and extra-judicial confession was recorded after nine months–Held: It can be said that there are not reasonable grounds within meaning of Section 497 Cr.P.C. to believe that Petitioners have committed alleged crime–Bail allowed. PLJ 1991 Cr.C (Lahore) 445 Weapon of offence has been recovered from possession of petitioner–It is a day light occurrence–There was no previous animosity between petitioner and complainant party–There is no dispute about initial criminality of petitioner–There is no doubt about identification–F.I.R. was promptly lodged–Petitioner as a source of strength to co-accused and all of them wanted to show strength in Education institution–Role of ineffective firing cannot be taken lightly as vicarious liability of petitioner stands projected and established–petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 850 Petitioner being 16 years and a few months of age, is a minor and cannot be awarded capital punishment–Whether or not he had attained sufficient maturity so as to be able to understand consequences of his act and thus liable to tazir, is a matter of further inquiry–Petitioner is entitled to bail on ground that only Lalkara is attributed to him and he is not to have caused injury to any person, although he was armed with sothi–As to whether he raised Lalkara and whether Lalkara was of a commanding nature will be determined at trial–Held: There are no reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner has committed offence–Held further: There are sufficient grounds for further inquiry–Bail granted–PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 290 Absence of accused on one date of hearing in Court was neither deliberate nor intentional–During twenty months when accused remained on bail, he did not misuse benefit of bail and regularly attended Court–Father of accused due to lapse of memory or inadvertence could not have filed application for adjournment in Court on aforesaid date when bail already granted to accused on ground of statutory delay was recalled–Bail allowed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1125 Contention that there are general allegations of causing lathi blows against applicants and no specific role has been assigned to them–Bail opposed on ground that all assailants including applicants committed crime in furtherance of their common object duly armed with hatchets and lathies–Their presence at scene of offence is not disputed and question of their false involvement cannot be determined at bail stage–Held : An accused is vicariously liable for commission of crime committed by co-accused if there is prima-facie evidence of sharing a common intention–It cannot be held at bail stage that there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicants did not commit offence–Bail refused– PLJ 1996 Cr. C (Karachi) 983 Petitioner was armed with a sickle and he accompanied his co-accused who had given fatal injuries to deceased–Deceased was yet under attack when P.W. tried to intervene to save him- but he was prevented by petitioner who assaulted him with a sickle thereby causing him injuries–On seeing this. petitioner and his other co-accused also joining hands with him, attacked injured PW after finishing deceased–As such, vicarious liability of all three accused in sing death of deceased cannot successfully be distinguished–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1041 There is no cavil with fact that in investigation, petitioners have been found to be innocent as no incriminating material has been collected against them–Nothing can be said at this stage as to whether principal accused, at time of occurrence had acted independently or under influence of petitioners unless evidence to reach any definite conclusion is recorded–Petitioners H & G are aged persons, their case falls within ambit and compass of proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and no motive or any other overt act has been ascribed to them, cannot be lightly ignored and brushed aside–According to sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C., where there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused has committed non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient ground for further inquiry, be released on bail–Held : Petitioner cannot be allowed to incarcerate for indefinite period on mere fact that they are closely related to principal accused who is still absconder–Petitioners admitted to bail. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 3 Court is bound to give due regard and weight to opinion of police officer provided it is based on concrete material–In this case opinion of S.P City is based on oral assertions of certain persons who are neither witnesses nor residents of nearby vicinity whereas eye-witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.0 have supported prosecution version–Bail refused. PLJ 1992 Cr. C (Lahore) 75 83 P.Cr.LJ. 502 followed.   Mere role of holding deceased in his Japha is attributed to petitioner–Admittedly he was found innocent during investigation as no solid evidence was collected against him by police and his name was placed in Column No. 2 of challan report–All these facts essentially render his case as further inquiry into his guilt and same is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C–He is behind bars and stated to be previous non-convict and his trial as yet has not commenced–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 536 As per contents of FIR one thing is admitted that role of ineffective firing is attributed to petitioner even to this extent that he alongwith his companions fired towards houses of complainant party and while opposing arguments it was not contended that there were signs of firing on house of complainant party–During arguments learned counsel far petitioner produced photo copy of NIC of petitioner which show that petitioner is aged about 68 years–No fatal injury is attributed to him and that question of vicarious liability is to be determined later on at stage of trial, therefore it is a fit case for grant of bail. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1095 Case against petitioners is not in any manner dissimilar to or distinguishable from case against coaccused–In these circumstances there is no reason why petitioners may not be treated in same manner in matter of bail as their co-accused who has-already been admitted to bail–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1281 Case against petitioners is not in any manner dissimilar to or distinguishable from case against coaccused–In these circumstances there is no reason why petitioners may not be treated in same manner in matter of bail as their co-accused who has-already been admitted to bail–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1281 Petitioners were mentioned in FIR with specific role of causing injuries on person of deceased–It was a brutal murder as deceased received 13 injuries and no previous ill-will or enmity existed between parties which prima facie eliminates possibility of false implication of petitioners–Petitioners were involved in a case falling within prohibitory clause–As far as contradictions in medical evidence and ocular account were concerned, according to doctor Injury No. 7 was likely to cause death in ordinary cause of nature which injury was declared to have been caused with blunt pointed edge weapon, and it will be seen after recording of statements of witnesses that whether it was caused with `Churri’ or with blunt pointed edge weapon–At this stage deeper appraisal of evidence cannot be considered–Petitioners minority will be considered after obtaining report from Medical Board which is basic requirement under Section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000–For the time being, no ground is made out for concession of bail–This application has no merits and is dismissed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 607 Complainant stated in his further statement that because of annoyance he at the time of. incident had falsely nominated some persons as culprits–Said further statement showed that complainant had dropped main accused–Complainant had added name of new assailant–Complainant, in the circumstances, had not only modified his own version, but had demonstrated his act of false implication of some of accused in earlier F.I.R.–Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded after eight days without any plausible explanation–Witnesses had also given a version different from that given in F.I.R. and they had tried to be selective in giving roles to different accused persons–Case of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 933 Petitioner is named in FIR–He was armed with 12-bore gun and had made firing at one of deceased alongwith co-accused–Investigating Officer challanged petitioner to face trial–Held : High Court found no extenuating ground to enlarge petitioners on bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1255 Contention that there was inordinate delay of 4/5 months without plausible explanation, this was unseen incident, no recovery was effected from applicants/accused and body of deceased had not been recovered, hence charge of murder in circumstances was not sustainable merely on suspicions and presumption, which made case doubtful–Further argued that on face of it this F.I.R. was lodged as a counter case of first F.I.R. lodged by applicant in connection with theft of his she-goats–Application made out a case of father inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr,C. (Karachi) 1092 Five persons had independently caused injuries to complainant but surprisingly Medico-legal Report in respect of complaint reflects only two injuries on his person–Question as to which out of five persons, including petitioners, had in fact hit complainant and which of those five persons had been alleged a role which was actually non-existant was a question which surely scales for further probe–Bail granted PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 183 Alleged motive and alleged recovery shall have to be analysed during trial–Supplementary statement is not a part of F.I.R. recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in a register maintained under R. 245 by police and thereafter investigated is set in motion under Section 156 Cr.P.C.–As such supplementary statement of complainant containing motive with respect to initial occurrence need not be followed–Weapon of offence was not stained with human blood–There is no specification of part body where injury was inflicted by petitioner–Case of prosecution against petitioner becomes of further inquiry–Bail granted. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 50 Some of points convassed by learned counsel for petitioners, i.e. delay in lodging of F.I.R., question of identification and conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence, are matters which require deeper appreciation of evidence which is neither permissible nor admissible at bail stage because at bail stage only a bird eye view material of prosecution is to be taken into consideration–It is also no ground for bail that petitioner was suffering from kidney trouble–Bail rejected. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 203 Injury attributed to petitioner on right arm–There is no distinction of place of injury as vital or non-vital part in a murder case–Legally presence of accused is to be taken into account if he is attributed any role as well as injury on person of deceased–Prima facie presence of petitioner at place of occurrence stands established–Reasoning of injury attributed to petitioner on non vital part is of no avail to him for purpose of admission to bail. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 180 Offences with which applicant is charged carry capital punishment–A deep appraisal or evaluation of evidence for purpose of bail cannot be made at bail stage and only tentative assessment of material in possession of prosecution is warranted by law–Reasonableness of grounds is to be tested on basis of material available with prosecution and brought to notice of Court by defence or prosecution and then without going into deeper evaluation of said material and merits of case if it is found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is guilty of offence with which he is charged bail could be refused to him–Merely, because enmity existed between parties it is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case- Each case is to be looked into its own perspective–Enmity is a double edged weapon and it can be termed a motive for commission of crime depending of course upon facts and circumstances of each case–There are reasonable grounds to believe that prima facie applicant is guilty of offence with which he is charged–He is, therefore, not entitled to bail- Bail refused. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 352 Trial has commenced and statement of complainant has already been recorded, therefore, releasing petitioners on bail at this stage merely on ground that complainant side has been summoned as an accused by same Trial Judge in counte version private complaint of co-accused, will most likely prejudice case of complainant–Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioners at this stage on this ground as well and direction to trial Court, in Courts opinion, to conclude trial within three months will meet ends of justice. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 458 Statement of only eye-witness has not supported prosecution case by resiling from his previous statement–Applicants are in custody since their arrest i.e. January 1993 till 30.3.1995–Nothing has been brought on record to show whether death of deceased took place on account of injuries alleged to have been caused by one of applicants or due to improper medical treatment because deceased remained in hospital for about 10 months for his treatment–It is a case of further enquiry attracted by subsection (2) of section 497 Cr. P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1475 Statement of accomplice and Rule of consistency–Ground of–For bail purpose, a statement of accomplice involving co-accused is not material of that strength which may disentitle privilege of bail to an accused against whom only material is allegation levelled by his accomplice which requires corroboration in material particular–Even at bail stage there must be some more convincing material including strong circumstantial evidence corroborating statement of an accomplice for purpose of denying bail to an accused–Such corroborative material which may implicate accused is absent in prosecution case and, therefore, applicant is entitled for grant of bail–Moreover, High Court has allowed bail to three co accused already–Case of present accused for bail is on better footing than other accused already admitted to bail–He is also entitled for bail on ground of consistency i.e. maintaining equality of treatment amongst several accused placed in similar and identical circumstances—Bail allowed. PLJ. 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 334 Petitioner was found innocent during investigation conducted and has not been challaned to court–Petitioner in view of the matter is allowed to bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.0 (Lahore) 769 Offence U/S. 302/34 PPC–Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, S. 7–Fatal shot was attributed to accused alone–Independent Mashir who was a police officer had captured accused within minutes of occurrence–Version of complainant was also fully supported by two eye-witnesses–Complainant party belonged to place different to residence of accused–Complainant could not, in the circumstances, be said to have intentionally suppressed name of accused in first portion of his F.I.R.–Medical evidence did not come in conflict with ocular version–Accused could not prove that he was minor within meaning of S. 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as Medical Board on examination of accused had opined that age of accused was 21/22 years–Prima facie sufficient evidence was available against accused to connect him with offence of Qatl-e-Amd–Bail application dismissed. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 906 lt is clear that petitioner is attributed simple injuries to PW on non vital parts of his body–Likewise his co-accused had wielded lathi to cause two simple injuries to another PW on non vital parts of his body–It is also clear that none of two has been attributed any overt act towards deceased–In such situation, vicarious liability remains open for determination during trial–There is also cross version for which complaint has been lodged and complainant side has been summoned therein–In such situation and particularly because of role attributed to petitioner and co-accused, they had identical case to each other which of course needed further inquiry–Held : Impugned order granting bail to co-accused by lower Court does not appear to be perverse or suffer from any legal or factual infirmity of any fundamental nature, so as to warrant interference by this Court–Held further : Case of petitioner is not distinguishable from his coaccused–Bail petition allowed in circumstances. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 956 Petitioner is behind bars for more than three years but not a single public witness has been recorded by trial Court–Last witness was recorded on about two years ago, who was draftsman–All legal heirs of deceased, except one have entered into a compromise with petitioner–No one can be detained in Jail for unlimited period–Such a long delay in conclusion of trial by itself is an abuse of process of Court–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 399 Two co-accused have been got discharged by police being found innocent while 3rd one’s pre-arrest bail has been confirmed–It is a case of no evidence–Principle of consistency demands that petitioner should also be released on bail in view of act (murder) being done in Ghairat–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1182 Case of petitioners’prima Their falls within prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. because reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years seen to exist, which clearly disentitles them from grant of bail. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1265 There is no ocular evidence to show that deceased was murdered by any of petitioners–Mere fact that N and D (PWs) saw firstly deceased and after some distance they saw petitioners going towards same direction, did not mean that petitioners were chasing deceased or were accompanying him—Such evidence cannot be treated as evidence of last seen–PWs A and C do not figure in F.I.R.–Moreover, evidence of extra-juidical confession may not by itself sufficient for conviction of petitioners–Recovery evidence could be used for corroboration of main evidence at the most, but by itself it cannot be basis for conviction–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 SC 510 Conviction for–Suspension of sentence–Pray for–It is well settled that a joint extra judicial confession is inadmissible–It is also well settled that evidence of extra judicial confession is a weakest type of evidence unless corroborated by independence and unimpeachable evidence, evidence of PW 4 was recorded after 21 days prima-facie is not confidence inspiring–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1451 It is a night occurrence and complainant lived at a different place and came to house of deceased on night of occurrence per chance–After arrest of petitioner nothing was recovered from him and during successive investigation petitioner was found innocent and a discharge report was prepared vis-a-vis petitioner which was submitted before Area Magistrate–However, Magistrate did not agree with same–Opinion of police may not be binding upon Courts but at same hand it is very relevant for purposes of determination of bail–Allegation against petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 655 Petitioners have been involved through statements of three witnesses recorded after eleven months of occurrence who have only stated that petitioners were seen in company of real culprit etc. before occurrence, who had participated in actual occurrence–No incriminating evidence has been collected by police to substantiate involvement of real culprit etc. in this case, no identification parade of said accused was ever held as real culprits from witnesses–To the extent of petitioners except evidence of last seen with aforesaid accused, no other evidence is available with prosecution that they had any motive to murder and had hatched a conspiracy or occurrence took place at their instance or they facilitated co-accused for murder of deceased–Evidence so far collected by prosecution is not sufficient to prima facie connect petitioners with commission of crime and case of petitioners is of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 407 Petitioner has sustained fire-arm injuries and has accepted his presence and also presence of complainant of other case–Venue of crime, time of occurrence and two complainants of two FIRs are same and because petitioner has sustained fire-arm injuries and also when visit of both parties to Mandi was without knowledge of other, it cannot be ruled out in view of previous blood feud enmity that parties got confronted with each other and due to fear resorted to firing–Therefore, it cannot le at bail stage concluded that which party was aggressor and which is aggressed upon–Bail.granted:’ PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1258 A perusal of F.I.R. reveals that either prior o occurrence or after occurrence fact remains that petitioner was empty handed–He is alleged to have raised lalkara for not committing murder of. deceased but of persons who had collected at spot after main occurrence stood completed–Petitioner was arrested on 20.9.1999 and since then he is in judicial lock up–Under similar circumstances relief of bail has been granted by Apex Court in 1999 SCMR 1360–Relying upon authorities referred by learned counsel for petitioner, thus case of present petitioner falls under provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C–Consequently, bail application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1409 No injury to deceased has been attributed to petitioner–Petitioner allegedly caused sota blow to PW on his right shoulder and back of chest–Second petitioner has been ascribed sota blow to other PW on back of his head–It has not been denied by prosecution and complainant’s side that head injury of one PW has been declared as Shajah Khafifa–Question of their various liability for murder of deceased would definitely be gone into at trial–Their case therefore, is covered under sub-section (2)( of Section 497 Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into their guilt–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 523 A perusal of facts reveal that at time of alleged occurrence, petitioner/accused are stated to be armed with a .12 bore gun and a rifle respectively and they are stated to have resorted to ineffective firing–Their participation in occurrence is also evident from fact that weapons were recovered from them and empties were also secured from spot–Participation of another accused stands corroborated from medical evidence as well as evidence of recovery of blood stained piece of brick with which he is alleged to have caused injury to Mst. Q–Thus 3 accused are not entitled to relief of bail at this stage and their request is declined–So far as remaining accused are concerned; they have been attributed a general allegation of pelting stones on house of complainant–There is no corroboration of this general allegation–Thus, case of prosecution to extent of remaining accused requires further probe–Accordingly, they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of trial Court. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1411 Petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased or to any of the P.Ws and during investigation nothing was recovered from him, petitioner is behind bars for the last one year–Keeping in view the circumstances–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 882 Petitioners were named in promptly registered F.I.R. with a specific role of causing injuries to deceased–Nature of injuries, specifically attributed to petitioners, was such that it could not result into death of deceased and therefore prime facie they were liable to commit Qatl-shibh-i-amd punishable U/S. 316 PPC which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.–There appear reasonable grounds for believing that petitioners have been guilty of offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more–Bail petition to extent of Murid Hussain and Wahid Bukhsh is rejected–Case of petitioner Raiz Ahmad is slightly different–In F.I.R. parentage of petitioner Riaz Ahmed is narrated as Jawanak–As a matter of fact petitioner Riaz Ahmad is son of Khuda Bukhsh–It was not contradicted before Court that Murid Hussain and Wahid Bukhsh petitioners have no brother named Riaz Ahmad–Participation of petitioner Riaz Ahmad becomes doubtful–Doubt, even if arises at stage of bail, is to be resolved in favour of accused/petitioner which entitles him to grant of bail–Held Bail granted to extent of petitioner Riaz Ahmad only–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1151 Petitioners were named in promptly registered F.I.R. with a specific role of causing injuries to deceased–Nature of injuries, specifically attributed to petitioners, was such that it could not result into death of deceased and therefore prime facie they were liable to commit Qatl-shibh-i-amd punishable U/S. 316 PPC which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.–There appear reasonable grounds for believing that petitioners have been guilty of offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more–Bail petition to extent of Murid Hussain and Wahid Bukhsh is rejected–Case of petitioner Raiz Ahmad is slightly different–In F.I.R. parentage of petitioner Riaz Ahmed is narrated as Jawanak–As a matter of fact petitioner Riaz Ahmad is son of Khuda Bukhsh–It was not contradicted before Court that Murid Hussain and Wahid Bukhsh petitioners have no brother named Riaz Ahmad–Participation of petitioner Riaz Ahmad becomes doubtful–Doubt, even if arises at stage of bail, is to be resolved in favour of accused/petitioner which entitles him to grant of bail–Held Bail granted to extent of petitioner Riaz Ahmad only–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1151 Only allegation against petitioner is that he exhorted co-accused to open fire–Said allegation commonly referred to as Proverbial Lalkara”—There is no hard and fast rule that bail must always be granted when only allegation against an accused is that of Lalkara–Overwhelming and consistent view of their Lordship’s of Supreme Court has been that in such cases bail is normally granted–Reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, prima facie do not seem to exist,-Case prima facie seems to be a case of further inquiry within meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1468 There is no contradiction in ocular evidence qua medical evidence–Case of prosecution also stands supported by statements of eye-witnesses including an injured eye-witness during occurrence–Crime weapon (a rifle) was recovered from accused during course of investigation and same was sent to Ballistic Expert, who could not ascertain as to when said rifle was lastly fired–Court do not think that Ballistic Expert report will have the any fatal adverse effects on the case of prosecution as both medical or Expert Report would be entirely in the nature of confirmatory or explanatory of direct, or other circumstantial evidence–Held : Prima fade there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner stands connected with charges alleged against him–Bail declined. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 45 Allegation against petitioner is only that of Lalkara–He was found innocent by DSP of area in an intensive investigation–Likewise, petitioner was found innocent by Superintendent of Police in second round of investigation–Fact that petitioner was found innocent by two Police Officers would make it a case of further inquiry–Held : Petition is converted into appeal and allowed. PLJ 1996 SC 795 Provisions of sections 5 (1) and 5(A) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 have not been strictly complied with–Medico legal report does not show injury attributed to accused to have been extended to body cavity, nor it has caused any fracture of bone, nor any impairment temporary or permanent of any organ of body–Accused is entitled to a lenient treatment–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Peshawar) 1187 Petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than one year and challan has not yet been submitted; that petitioners were found innocent in investigations conducted by ASI, SHO and Inspector Crimes Branch and DIG also concurred with findings of innocence; that there is no allegation of mala fide available on file in respect of such findings; that as per findings of various Investigating Officers, other persons have been found involved in occurrence; no recovery whatsoever has been effected from petitioners and there is a delay of three days in lodging FIR–Bail application allowed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 677

3. Petitioner is aged 60 years–Allegation that he sent Mst. Nazran with his son Ashraf for Commission of Zina, prima facie would require further inquiry–So for as Rustam Ali petitioner its concerned, possibility cannot be ruled out that he was falsely implicated for mala fide reasons as stated by investigation officer–Petition Qutab Din admitted to bait and pre-arrest bail of petitioner Rustam Ali confirmed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C. (Lahore) 540
4. Petitioner is not named in FIR:- Petitioner is not named in FIR nor he was subjected to any identification test–Neither he was apprehended at spot nor was any recovery made–He is being involved on basis of confession allegedly made by co-accused–Held: No doubt, confession of an accused can be taken into consideration as a circumstance against co-accused when both are being jointly tried but that by itself may not be sufficient to secure conviction–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 417 Complainant, father of deceased, an eye-witness in sworn affidavit exonerated petitioners–Investigating Officer conducting investigation in mosque which is not warranted by law–Investigating Officer’s version is highly improbable, fantastic and beyond scope of investigation–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lahore) 297
5. Petitioner of 12/13 years old, attributed role of catching hold of deceased who was a young, stout boy of 23 year’s–Co-accused (brother) of petitioner, giving brief injury to deceased–No evidence on record to show that petitioner had knowledge of co-accused to commit murder of deceased–Question whether it was really required for other accused to catch hold for facilitation of offence, held, matter of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 15
6. Petitioner under age of 16 year–Proviso to S. 497 Cr.P.C., enabling court to release any person on bail, under age of 16 years or any woman or any sick or infirm person, held, not mandatory, rather discretionary and each case must he considered on its merits. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 15
7. Petitioner was caught red-handed with charas weighing 2½ KG.–Plea of violation of provision of S. 103 Cr.P.C. was repelled in as much as, such provision is not applicable to a case of present nature–Provision of S. 510) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 place embargo and prohibition vis-a-vis grant of bail in a case attracting provisions of S. 9(c) of the Act–Challan has already been submitted after completion of investigation–No reasonable ground was pointed out for grant of bail–Bail petition dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1098
8. Petitioners are not named in FIR—Occurrence took place on 5.2.1993 whereas identification parade was held on 22.8.1994–Although statutory period of two years has elapsed but trial has not been concluded–Held : Role against petitioners is not :1:’tinguishable from role attributed to co–accused who has already been granted bail–Petitioners admitted to bail in circumstances. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 134
9. Plea of alibi at bail stage-Alleged plea of alibi has still to stand test of scrutiny on basis of evidence yet to be recorded by recorded by Trial court, therefore, the same cannot at all be gone into for purpose of grant or refusal of bail. PLJ 2004 Cr.C Pesh 170 Offence U/Ss. 302/452/ 148/149 PPC–No doubt petitioner has been declared innocent on plea of alibi by three Investigating Officers–Plea of alibi came up for consideration before Supreme Court of Pakistan and learned Judges were pleased to hold that as for plea of alibi, it cannot be judged at bail stage. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 539
10. Plea of Alibi–Accused named in FIR as one of main accused and a specific role was assigned to him–One of fatal injuries was also said to be caused by him to deceased–Although no recovery was shown to have been made from petitioner, but some by itself cannot detract from prosecuting otherwise making out a prima facie case against petitioners–Plea of alibi based on ocular evidence not being corroborated by other reliable evidence cannot be taken into consideration while granting bail. PLJ 1997 SC 42
11. Police Openion:- It is true that opinion of police officers, no matter how senior he may be, is not binding on Court, yet it is equally true that for purposes of determining of whether reasonable grounds to believe that person is guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life seems to exist or not–An opinion given by police officer has to be kept in mind while exercising discretion judicially and not arbitrarily PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 383
12. Possession of and trafficking in narcotics–Offence of–Bail–Prayer for–No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution only on ground that no member from public had come forward to support case–Members of police force are competent witnesses in eyes of law–Conduct of investigation by same police officer who conducted raid, is neither illegal nor improper–Allegation against petitioner is not only of possession of intoxicant but also of trafficking in narcotics–Thus offence alleged against him fell not only within purview of Article 4 but also within mischief of Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 punishable with imprisonment for life–No malice has been alleged against raiding party for falsely accusing petitioner–Held: Absconsion of petitioner for seven months after dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application, is another ground which militates against grant of bail to petitioner–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1993 Cr.C (Lahore) 35
13. Pre-arrest and Ipse dixit of Police– According to one Investigating Officer petitioner had been trying to get investigation transferred in which he succeeded–This factor is sufficient to shake veracity of opinion of three Investigating Officers. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 539
14. pre-arrest Bail –Offence U/S. 302/120-B/148/149 PPC–Petitioner is not shown in all the FIRs to be present at the scene of occurrence at any time before or after the incident, resulting in death of deceased and his companions and that there was no material as yet available with prosecution showing his involvement in alleged conspiracy by political opponents of deceased and the fact that petitioner’s name is not included in interm challan as an accused in relevant columns, nor his name is included in column-2 thereof–Petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 SC 481 Offence u/S. 337-A(ii)/34 PPC–Conduct of petitioners by absenting themselves on date of final hearing of their pre-arrest bail petition before lower Court, is highly disrespectful–By playing hide and seek with court of law, they have deliberately committed mockery of law and Court–This conduct cannot be encouraged–Even on merits of case, injuries are specifically attributed to petitioners and they have yet to join investigation–There are no reasonable grounds to confirm pre-arrest bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 965
15. Pre-arrest Bail:— S. 498-A read with 561-A Cr.P.C. -Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, S. 302/324/148/149/120–Pre-arrest bail–Contention, that provisions contained in section 498-A is not applicable to High court and in this section no reference has been made to High Court and the expression “Court’ used in section does not cover High Court–Held : Contention is misconceived–Presence of applicant is necessary for consideration of his bail application–Since applicant is not present his application does not merit consideration–Bail rejected. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 195 Offence U/s. 364/342/337/L (ii)/148/149 PPC and Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947–Prima facie, Petitioners (Police Officials) had taken law into their own hands by giving beating and detaining complainant in custody without any legal justification–It is well-settled law that pre-arrest bail relief is granted only in those matters where. it would appear that registration of such cases was based on enmity/mala/ide or where no offence was shown to have been committed on very face of record–This is not position in petitioners case–Petitioners belong to police department which has been created to prevent and detect crime, enforce law and maintain public order, peace, and safety–Allegations having been levelled against petitioners are horrible, indeed, and are against purposes for which police department was established–Held: Petitioners do not deserve this extra-ordinary discretionary relief of bail before arrest–Refused–Leave to appeal– PLJ 1996 SC 793 Offence U/s. 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 451 PPC–Right of pre-arrest bail is limited to exceptional and rare cases which are based on malafide/enmity or where no offence is show to have been committed on bare reading of F.I.R.–Held: Petitioner’s case is, undoubtedly, not from that category–Refused–Leave to appeal- PLJ 1996 SC 797   Grant of pre-arrest bail is not rule in criminal cases and that exercise of such power should be confined to cases where not only ground for grant of bail on merits is made out but also there should be sufficient material to show that there were ulterior motive either on part of police or adversaries to involve accused so as to humiliate and harass him. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Karachi) 152 PLD 1991 Pesh 54 relied. Petitioner was allowed concession of pre-arrest hail by Addl. Sessions Judge but after availing of the same for many days he and his co-accused failed to furnish bail bonds as directed and even to enter appearance on date so fixed–Conduct thus played by petitioner disentitles him to concession of protective/enabling hail particularly when he has been guilty of with-holding facts and contending that he has come to know of his nomination in delayed F.l.R only during arguments in habeas Corpus matter–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1378 Extra ordinary concession–To be granted in particular case where: (i)Some ones honour is involved; (ii) There is danger of his humiliation in the eyes of law; or (iii)Glaring malafide on the part of prosecution -Instant case nad been adjudicated by lower forums exhaustively and merits of case discussed–At that stage ground of false implication or malafide not available–No case for grant of bail before arrest made out–Pre-arrest bail dismissed. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 977   Offence under section 337-A (i)/337-F (i)/354/452/148/149 P.P.C.–Bail–Prayer for–Petitioners are named in FIR, Specific roles attributed to them, Eye witnesses are mentioned in FIR, their statements recorded and injured persons examined by Medical Officer within a short period and Medico Legal Reports issued, but complete or interim report as contemplated under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 Cr. P. C., was not prepared and submitted before Area Magistrate–Held: Protracted investigation on basis of frequent transfer of investigation and non submission of challan as required by law is one of reasons that law and order situation is worsening in Province–Further held: It is not a fit case for admission of petitioners/accused to pre-arrest bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 592 Court while forming a opinion has to look into FIR, statement recorded u/s, 161 CrPC, any other in criminating material collected by prosecution, and plea of accused, if any. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 62 Petitioner is not named in FIR–Co-accused have been admitted to pre-arrest bail, so he too is entitled to sail with them in the same boat through attraction of rule of consistency–There was no reason to deny concession of pre-arrest bail–Application accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1285   Petitioner deals in combustible items used in Atishbazi and a licence is issued for carrying on such a business–It is not a case of prima facie attraction of Ss. 3/4 of Explosive Substances, Act–Narration about attraction of these sections in FIR is transgression of police officer who raided shop of petitioner–Sections 285 and 286 PPC are bailable, whereas maximum punishment for offence u/S. 188 PPC is six months, but is non-bailable–There is no material with police file to justify attraction of this section–In bailable offences, it is the right of an accused to be admitted to bail as contemplated u/S. 496 Cr.P.C.–FIR quashed to the extent of charge u/S. 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 826   Petitioner/accused did not make any speech, statement, rumour or report before any person so as to cause or likely to cause fear or alarm to public or to any section of public or to further any activity to public safety or maintenance of public order–However attraction of Section 16 of MPO Ordinance, 1960 may be considered by trial Magistrate after submission of challan–Sections 186/353/225 and Part I of Section 506 PPC are bailable–Petitioners are entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest hail–Petition allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1283 Petitioner/accused did not make any speech, statement, rumour or report before any person so as to cause or likely to cause fear or alarm to public or to any section of public or to further any activity to public safety or maintenance of public order–However attraction of Section 16 of MPO Ordinance, 1960 may be considered by trial Magistrate after submission of challan–Sections 186/353/225 and Part I of Section 506 PPC are bailable–Petitioners are entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest hail–Petition allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1283 Petitioner is not named in FIR–Co-accused have been admitted to pre-arrest bail, so he too is entitled to sail with them in the same boat through attraction of rule of consistency–There was no reason to deny concession of pre-arrest bail–Application accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1285 Pre-arrest bail–Names of applicants are not mentioned in challan–Applicants are public servants—Previous sanction of Government for their prosecution as laid down in sub-section (5) of Section 6 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 not obtained–Held: Unless there clear sanction of prosecution of case against accused/applicants they cannot be tried–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Karachi) 307 Cases of bail pre-arrest are dealt with in a different manner than those of bail after arrest–In order to justify grant of anticipatory bail, petitioner must show that he apprehends his arrest on account of ulterior motive or prosecution is motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injury to his reputation and liberty or police was motivated on political consideration or for ulterior reasons–Extraordinary jurisdiction of anticipatory bail which has effect of diverting normal course of law should be exercised with caution. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJ&K) 43 Plea offence U/S. 302/330 PPC–Whether can be consider at bail stage–Question of–Plea of alibi, cannot be judged at bail stage-Recitals of FIR have to play legal role which cannot be ignored–Eye witnesses are mentioned in FIR who saw alleged occurrence–Petitioner has been ascribed/attributed specific role of effecting physical coercion upon deceased alongwith his co-accused and injured expired after wards–In the circumstances petitioner who was SHO of Police Station cannot claim unnecessary harassment at the hands of police–There is no merit in this application for his pre arrest bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1657 Petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence and allegation against them was of abetment under S. 109, P.P.C.–Section 109, P.P.C. having been declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam– Reasonable grounds, thus, were available to believe that accused were not guilty of alleged offence and sufficient grounds were present for further inquiry into their guilt–Bail confirmed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 884 Offence U/s 302, 448, 147, 148, 149, 109, 337-B, APC–Previous enmity between the parties existed–No overt act attributed to accused–General allegation of ineffective firing–No recovery effected–Night time occurrence–Identification in touch lightly highly improbable–Trial courts order granting pre-arrest ‘bail does not warrant interference in present circumstances PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJK) 62 Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109/409/34 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)–Pre-arrest bail–Heuge loss of Rs. 5.04 million was alleged to have been caused to National Bank on account of collusion between accused and President of Bank–Despite case haying been registered four months back accused was yet at large, no imminent danger of arrest seemed to exist particularly in view of lethargy and inaction on part of Agencies for bringing culprits to book in accordance with law–Even otherwise, case having been registered at Karachi, Courts at Karachi were appropriate forums for considering relief prayed for–Prearrst bail could not be granted indiscriminately or as matter of routine until and unless some mala fides were shown on the part of police–Senior Officials of Bank who had lodged F.I.R. had apparently no malafide intention against accused–Anticipatory bail was declined. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1556 Witnesses not nominating any accused in their initial statement–Evidentiary value of subsequent belated statement, of witnesses implicating accused yet to be determined by trial Court–Fatal injury attributed to co-accused–Held : These all factors, when taken together do make case of prosecution as that. of further inquiry. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 349 In cases of non bailable offence grant of bail is primarily is discretion and it should not be disturbed unless it is not exercised with due care and caution keeping in view restrictions of Sec. 497 & 498 Cr.P.C.–Further discretion must be in accordance with dictates of justice and not arbitrary or fancifull–Thus while interfering with order of grant of bail there should he some strong grounds as if order granting bail is patently perverse or manifestly wrong. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 349 Main consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail is whether prosecution is motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injury to citizen’s reputation and liberty and there should be apprehension of harassment and undue humiliation by means of unjustified arrest. PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 349 It would be paradoxical to suggest that at the stage of pre-arrest hail, plea of alibi raised by accused cannot he taken into account and only evidence produced by prosecution is to considered–Held : It is imperative for court of law to consider any plea taken by an accused at bail stage alongwith material placed by prosecution on record PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 349 Whether in case of concurrent jurisdiction applicant should move first Sessions Court before approaching High Court for pre-arrest bail–Question of–Superior courts in string of decisions has held that in matters of pre-arrest bail where lower court has concurrent jurisdiction with High Court, ordinarily accused should not be allowed to by-pass Sessions Court and approach High Court directly–General rule is that where two courts enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction, court comparatively lower in hierarchy should be moved first and only in compelling or exceptional circumstances an accused may he allowed to approach High Court without first approaching Sessions Court. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Karachi) 300 Plea of alibi could not be adjudged at bail stage in the face of prima facie material available on record–huge quantity of heroin weighing 25 kg. had been recovered–Accused/petitioner had already managed to export 10 kg. heroin to Nigeria in 6000 foot-balls–Reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was guilty of offence failing within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. –Reasoning given by Sessions Court for having recalled order granting pre-arrest bail to accused could not be differed with–Pre-arrest bail was refused in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Lahore) 14 No active role attributed to petitioner except his presence, pot–Petitioner, a Govt. servant–Coaccused assigned positive role but released on bail–Petitioner declared innocent by two investigating agencies–Rule of consistency, held, to be followed in such like cases–Case, one of further inquiry–Petitioner, a Government servant and, it will bring humiliation to him if he is sent to jail and then enlarged on bail following rule of consistency—Petitioner admitted to bail. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Lah-) 329 1986 S.C.M.R. 1380 ref Bail before arrest-Whether in case of concurrent jurisdiction was it not necessary for that applicant to move Sessions Court fist before approaching High Court for pre-arrest bail–Question of–Held: It is well settled by string of decisions of superior Courts, that in matter of pre-arrest bail where tower court has concurrent jurisdiction with High Court, ordinarily accused should not be allowed to by pass Sessions Court and approach High Court directly–General rule is that whore two Courts enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction court comparatively lower in hierarchy should be moved first and only in compelling and exceptional circumstances accused may be allowed to move High Court directly. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- (Kar.) 358
16. Pregnancy : — Accused, a lady, had sought bail on the sole ground of pregnancy-Report of the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, revealed that the accused was in advanced stage of pregnancy-Accused was continuously in custody for the last about four months-Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. 2004 P Cr. L. J. 212
17. Pre-rarest and Post arrest bail–Rules governing grant of pre-arrest bail are different from those applicable to bail after arrest and that an accused not coming to court with clean hands is not entitled to discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. PLJ 1997 Cr- C- (Karachi) 152
18. Presence of ulterior motive, particularly on part of police, to harass or humiliate by means of unjustified arrest is one of conditions for grant of bail before arrest. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- (Kar.) 358
19. Presumption of guilty under section 8 S.T.A.–Whether prosecution relieved of duty to prove its case beyond doubt–Question of–It has been constantly held by courts, ever since Federal Court Judgment in Safdar Ali ‘s case that prosecution is never relieved of duty to prove its case beyond doubt and when burden is caste on defence to prove special circumstances, this burden is sufficiently discharged by showing reasonable possibility of defence version being true–Applying these standards to section-8, it would appear that burden of proof would shift upon accused only if all necessary ingredients to attract presumption of guilt established by prosecution beyond doubt and only thereafter defence would only be required to show that its plea is reasonably possible–In order to maintain consistency with principles of Human Rights, law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. High Court is inclined to hold that provisions of S. 8 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Special Courts) Act, 1975 is not applicable at bail stage–Held . Applicants are entitled to bail–Per Rashid A. Razvi, J. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 902
20. Prevention of corruption : — No allegation of using any fraudulent or forged document as genuine, was made in the F.I.R – Prosecution case was that the scrap which was pledged with the Bank was lifted and disposed of in violation of the agreement with the Bank – Effect of the pledge which was in the nature of bailment of movable property by way of security was to be considered by the Trial Court-Availing of loan facility being basically a transaction of civil matter was also to be determined by the Trial Court as to ho far the contravention of any contractual obligation had constituted a criminal offence-Case against accused, thus, required further inquiry-Co-accused having already been granted bail, accused was also entitled to the same following the rule of consistency-Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.   PLD 2003 Kar. 76
21. Previous enmity between parties–Large number of able-bodied men belonging to same family had been roped in case of which there is no eye-witness and due to previous enmity between parties, possibility cannot be ruled out that petitioners have been involved in malafides manners just to widen net which makes it also a case of further inquiry. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 991
22. Principles-Neither elaborate nor deep assessment of evidence on record nor detailed discussion on various items of evidence which the prosecution intended to produce at the trial, was possible at the bail stage-Admittedly whatever was alleged in the F.I.R could not in all cases be taken as gospel truth-If allegations in F.I.R., prima facie were negated by other material patent on record, then that could also be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail-Such defects and doubts in the prosecution case, could not be totally ignored merely because accused was directly charged in the F.I.R.-Were prosecution would convince the court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had committed the crime charged with, then the court must refuse to extend the concession of bail to accused. 2004 P. Cr. L. J 110
23. Proclaimed offender–Offence u/S. 302/34 PPC–Altercation was sudden; petitioner was empty handed; Firing was alleged to remaining tWo co-accused–Role of petitioner as conspirator not evident from the record–He was declared proclaimed offender with remaining two co-accused–This sole ground was not sufficient to dis-entitle him to concession of bail–Bail granted.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 510
24. Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order :– Offences with which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P. C. – Accused had remained in jail for about one year and the case had not proceeded so far and even the charge had not been framed – Record did not show that the accused was likely to abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence or repeat the offence after his release on bail – Accused was not a previous convict – Delay in receipt of Chemical Examiner’s Report of the contraband by itself was not a bar to the grant of bail when reasonable grounds exited for believing that the accused was not connected with the commission of the offence – Non-mention by the counsel of accused while filing bail application before High Court about filing of another application for bail before the Trial Court, would not itself be a ground to penalize the accused for the fault committed by his counsel in case the accused had been found entitled to grant of bail – Despite earlier information respectable persons of the locality were not associated in recovery proceedings carried out against the accused – Allegations against accused, thus, needed further inquiry – Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed in circumstances and interim bail already granted to accused was confirmed accordingly. PLD 2002 S.C. 590 PLD 1990 Lah.249; PLD 1987 SC 13; 1995 P. Cr. L. J 440; 1997 MLD 2094; PLD 1972 SC 227; 1989 P. Cr. L. J 1334; 1997 SCMR 947; 1998 P. Cr. L. J. 1444; 1998 P. Cr. L. J. 1540; 1999 MLD 474; 1998 P. Cr. L. J 664; 1981 P. Cr. L. J 393; PLD 1992 Quetta 67; PLD 1963 SC 1; PLD 1990 SC 1092; 1998 SCMR 485 and PLD 1997 SC 545 ref. Recovery of 1055 grams of charas and 10 liter indigenous liquor–30 grams of charas was sent for chemical analysis but Chemical Examiner in his report informed the Police that result of sample was inconclusive, a second sample was required for analysis–Second sample had not been sent to Chemical Examiner–There was nothing on record to show that alleged substance was charas–Petitioner cannot be detained for an indefinite period–Delay in submission of challan has not been properly explained–Bail granted in the circumstances.PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 926
25. Prohibitory clause:- Diseretion exercised by Sessions Court allowing pre-arrest hail to accused facts and circumstances of case could not have been interfered with by High Court, specially when offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.–Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and accused were allowed Lail. PLJ 1997 SC 1168 Petitioner armed with “Khardar” injured complainant and his brother–Injuries declared dangerous for life-= Khardar” recovered–Occurrence took place in street where complainant resides–Motor cycle used by assailant taken into possession from site of occurrence–Held: Prima facie involvement of accused under section 324 PPC is made out–It is proper to express that section 324 PPC falls within prohibitory clause–Petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1400 Recovery of–Offence with which accused was charged was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and fine of not less than one million rupees and same fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497W, Cr. P.C.–Trial of accused had already commenced and he had sought three adjournments in order to engage counsel–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1559 Offence under S. 302, 324, 353, 34 PPC–Bail sought on ground inter cilia that the accused not named in FIR at time it was lodged but subsequently he was named as accused as such accused was entitled to bail–Held: Petitioner is a nominated accused in ‘FIR on the basis of information divulged to complainant by co-accused–According to FIR petitioner and co-accused opened fire to police party–Hence in the presence to this material there exist reasonable ground to believe that petitioner is involved in a case which falls within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) Cr.P.C.–Bail refused PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1626 Offence u/s 11/16 Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979–Names of applicants/accused figure in FIR with a specific role–Applicants were duly armed with fire arms–They have abducted married girl on pointation of weapons and so also taken away house hold articles of complainant–So far delay of 16 hours is concerned, it is of no consequence as in abduction matters, honour of families is on stake and people think over seriously before going to Police Station for lodgment of FIR–Neither abductee is recovered nor robbed property–At bail stage there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that applicants/accused are not guilty of offence with which they are charged–Offence falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.S–Bail application dismissed. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 364
26. Rash and negligent driving resulting in death–No previous animosity between deceased and petitioner–Prima facie case falls under section 320 P.P.C. which is bailable–Petitioner admitted to Bail in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 186
27. Reasons of granting bail: (i) There are two conflicting versions of incident, one narrated by deceased/complainant and other came to light during investigating–Beside point which one is correct, will be decided by trial court, but a doubt arising out of variants in prosecution story shall certainly lend benefit to accused even at bail stage (ii) Recovery of crime weapon is not effected from petitioner (iii) Despite investigation conducted thrice by three different police officials as to how gun owned by complainant-deceased himself passed on to petitioner and it was used in commission of offence–This unique feature of case has made it a case of further inquiry–(iv) No doubt petitioner has allegedly committed a heinous crime punishable with death and offence falls within a prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. but mere heinousness of offence should not stand in way of bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lahore) 980
28. Recalling of the Bail: – dangerous were not entitled to the concession of bail either in enquiry or in law – the same recalled. KLR 1994 CR. C 35
29. Recovery Heroin and charas–Allegation of–Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Arts. 3 & 4–Seizure memo. as well as F.I.R. did not indicate drawing of representative sample–Report of Chemical Examiner though was in respect of 10 grams charas and 1 gram heroin, but that by itself did not connect samples with stuff allegedly seized from accused–It is yet to be established during trial that stuff got examined chemically was in fact drawn from material allegedly seized from accused–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 919 Trial of accused is near completion and only statement of 1.0. has to be recorded–I.O. had been earlier attending court but subsequently, he avoided to make statement–Bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against him–Trial is at concluding stage–Held: Non-appearance of 1.0. could not be made a ground for grant of bail to accused–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1994 SC 180 Offence under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979–Bail–Prayer for–Locality from which, applicant is shown to have been arrested, is a commercial area having a number of eating places and there would be a number of diners available, but no independent person has been taken to act as Mashir–No doubt police officials can be treated as trustworthy, but prosecution ought to have shown reasons for not incorporating any private Mashir in investigation—Ground taken by learned counsel regarding non-weighment of heroin at spot, also has force–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Karachi) 255 Huge quantity of charas has been recovered from motor car in question in which petitioner was accompanying driver a co-accused and confessional statement of co-accused, exonerating petitioner from commission of crime cannot be taken into account at bail stage–Held : Petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 133 Allegation of–Contention of petitioner that recovery becomes illegal because witnesses from locality had not been associated at time of recovery U/S. 103 Cr.P.C. is not of much substance in narcotics cases–In prevailing/present social condition of ‘society Honourable Supreme Court has held in several cases that a police officer is as good a witness as any other person in cases of recovery of norcotics–Maximum punishment for offence is life imprisonment and, therefore, case is covered by prohibitory clause of sub-section (1) of Sec. 497 Cr.P.C.Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1615 Accused/petitioners apprehended by Inspector Rangers in border belt area–Since about 11 months petitioners were behind the bars without any progress in trial–Search was made in violation of mandatory provisions of law–Bail was allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 134 Case registered under Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 9, 12, 14 & 15–Accused was behind bars for the last five years on charge of recovery of 250 grams of heroin–Case against accused had not been proceeded and evidence of witnesses had also not been recorded–Accused, if found guilty, maximum punishment was seven years–Bail was granted to accused in circumstances. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1092 Offence U/S. 9-B Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–No other case stands registered against petitioner–He is young man of 18 years of age–Offence alleged against him does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and on Court query police official appearing in Court admits that petitioner appears to be an addict of churs–There is no evidence of sale–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1312 Contention, falsely implication of accused in a crime witnessed only by Police Officials–Held : No doubt, rule of propriety demands association of public witnesses in recovery proceedings, but not a universal application–In exceptional cases, may not be possible to procure attendance of public witnesses due to general apathy of public to appear as prosecution witnesses against accused charged with serious offences–Petitioner involved in 25 cases of similar nature–Petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail–Bail declined. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Lahore) 245 In absence of expert evidence, it is not even clear that it was in fact that-as-Maximum sentence provided u/s 9(b)(iii) of Ordinance is 7 years-Principle of grant. of hail in offence not falling within prohibitory clause may not strictly applicable to narcotic field, but in case which need further inquiry to ascertain nature of offence with which an accused is being charged bail in term of sub-section (21 of Section 497 Cr.P.C. is claimed as of right. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1064 Police Officer effecting recovery in area not falling within his jurisdiction–Neither, before making recovery police officer reported his arrival in Daily Diary, nor asked for help to concerned Police Station–Such working cannot be approved–Despite having sufficient time no person from public was joined in recovery proceedings–Alleged recovery only witnessed by police officials–Bail allowed in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- (Lahore) 161 Initial F.I.R. registered under Sections 324/353 PPC–Petitioner on some day as searched for second time and recovery was effected in presence of Police Officials–Nothing on record to make out as to why in first search under section 51 Cr.P.C. alleged recovery was not effected–Held: Police is competent to make search of a person of an accused once and once only under law—Recovery becomes doubtful as person of petitioner was “further searched” about which there is no provision in Section 51 Cr.P.C. -Involvement of petitioner in crime is a question of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 184 Contention that except Police Officials no public witness was associated to witness alleged recovery—First report of Chemical Examiner was negative whereas second report was positive–Offence was non-cognizable as alleged recovery has not been affected from public place–Alleged recovery was affected by CIA which is illegal–Held Recovery was affected by C.I.A. from accused’s house without obtaining any permission from Magistrate; C.I.A. has no authority to embark upon investigation unless it entrusted to C.I.A. by Superintendent of Police of district–Bail was allowed in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr. C- (Lahore) 165 1989 Law Notes (Lahore) 1058 ref.
30. Recovery of 12 bore pistol with cartridges–A careful study of sub-section (1) (a) (v) of Section 2 shows that only such weapons are covered by Illicit Arms Act, 1991, object of which is silencing of fire arms and all other fire arms are included in sub clause (iv)–Since appliance recovered from applicant is gun which has no relevancy of silencing approach therefore same is not covered by Illicit Arms Act, 1991–Bail granted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 679
31. Recovery of Currency notes— Applicant has not declared currency orally or in writing before Customs Authorities, which is mandatory as required u/s 139 of Customs Act—Contention that applicant has been made a victim by over-zealous officials who in order to get reward for seizure and also to prove their efficiency registered false and concocted case is repelled–Possibility of tempering with prosecution evidence at the hands of accused, if released on bail cannot be ruled out–No plausible explanation has been given by applicant for taking such a huge amount with him–Held : Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused applicant is guilty of offences for which he has been charge sheeted–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1271
32. Recovery of huge quantity of Arms mid ammunition– Petitioner involved with mala fide intention and due to enmity–Place of recovery belonging to another person who has not been made co-accused–Recovery not affected from exclusive possession of petitioner–No private person associated in recovery procoodings–Petitioner’s admission before Magistrate regarding ownership of boxes containing huge quantity of Arms and Ammunition–Sufficient incriminating material has been collected by accused–Regarding sickness of petitioner, he is not suffering from incurable disease, he is hospitalised and there is no complaint about shortage or non-availability of medicines–Held: Violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken into consideration at bail stage–Held Further: Matter does not fall within ambit of further inquiry–Bail refused. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Quetta) 314
33. Recovery of Klashnikov, Repeater and 30 Pistol–Contention, that raid and consequential recoveries effected by C.l A. was illegal–Requirements of S. 103 Cr. P.C. were disregarded–Recoveries were not made on pointation of applicant–Applicant being sick hospitalize and woman—Held C.l A. Inspector claimed authorization to conduct raid–Hospitalisation is due to allergy not likely to impair her capacity or threaten her life–Applicant alongwith 20/30 persons dispossessed an old lady ransacking house–One of witness of recovery was an employee of victim lady—Fundamental tenets of Islam and equally important Constitutional guarantees have been blatantly violated for which end recovered weapons were, allegedly, used and applicant was avowedly personally involved–Bail was refused in circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Karachi) 175
34. Recovery of Opium:–Place of incident is thickly populated and even bus was carrying other passengers apart from applicant but inspite of that Inspector has violated provisions of Section 103 Cr.P.C. and has not tried even to associate any private person to act as mashir–Charge has not been framed–Conviction is only upto seven years as such it does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497(i) Cr.P.C.–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1450
35. Reference made to high Court-Accused was admitted to bail by the High Court and he had furnished surety in the sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to be satisfaction of Trial Court i.e., the Special court-Accused absconded thereafter and the Special court had sent the reference to High Court for cancellation of his bail-Held, High Court and sessions court both had concurrent jurisdiction to take decision about the justification for cancellation of bail and their powers were not subject to restrictions-Judicial propriety, however, demanded that sessions court being the lower forum would be in a better position to appreciate the facts and circumstances and pass an order-Where the Trial Court while exercising powers as sessions Court had directed or effected the arrest of a person under s. 92 or 514, Cr.P.C it might amount to cancellation of bail if the court had mentioned it expressly-Position, however, would be different if the arrest had been ordered or effected by the court having no power to cancel the bail-Reference for cancellation of bail in such circumstance had to be made essentially to the forum competent to pass such orders-Special court being competent to exercise powers of Section judge under S. 497, Cr.P.C and the powers of Trial Court under Ss. 514 & 92, Cr.P.C was not required to make the reference-Reference was disposed of with the said observations. PLD 2003 Kar. 247
36. Registration of F.I.R. under provisions of Narcotics Substances Act–Recovery of 1500 grams opium–Held: Grant of bail in such offences which are increasing day by day in society and in order to curb the same, these laws have to be applied in a manner ensuring deterrent punishment–Accused of offence traversing public morality cannot be allowed to evade punishment merely on technicalities–Financial stakes involved in narcotics do increase chance of tampering evidence thus abusing benefit of bail–Bail petition dismissed. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Karachi) 206   PLD 1997 SC 545 rel.
37. Rejection of Application for bail— –Appeal against–Abscondence from trial court–Reference to High Court seeking permission to cancel bail bond and forfeiture of Surety Bond–What procedure was to be adopted when under trial prisoner released on bait not by trial court itself, but by High Court, jumped bait and whether his absence on a date of hearing was ought to be condoned or which court was competent to take action against sureties–Question of-When an accused person fails to appear before trial court with justifiable reason, trial Court is fully competent to take action against him and secure his presence by issnance of coercive process and it is not necessary to cancel his bail or move another court for such cancellation–Whenever accused jumps bail, action can be taken by Special Judge (or Sessions Judge) in terms of bond itself–When an accused person granted bail by High Court and having furnished a bond for his appearance before trial Court, does not appear before that court without justification, Trial Court has ample powers to proceed against him in terms of bond, cause his arrest and upon recording his satisfaction as to forfeiture of bond even proceed against surety–Held : Cancellation of bail under section 497(5) is not necessary–Further held Reference ‘ to High Court was un-necessary with direction that matter be placed before trial court who would consider application for condonation of absence on merits and proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Karachi) 836
38. Relevancy of Case-law In bail matters: — An authority in one bail matter, may hardly be relevant in other case as facts and circumstances of each and every case are distinguishable.PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 42
39. Role attributed to petitioner is just giving fist blows–Injuries No. 1 and 2 stated in medico legal report both on nose are declared as Shajjah-i-Hashimah, are related to no accused–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C. (Lahore) 113
40. Rreasonable grounds:- Awarding of Contract at exhorbitant prices and causing of loss of U.S. 128 Millions to national ex-chequer, Offence of–Bail applications against–Oil and Gas Corporation is a legal person–Its management lies with Board of Directors which is under total Control of Central Government and may he replaced by said Government at its pleasure It has its own regulations–Although its employees are not public servant yet by means of section 27 of Ordinance 1961, they are deemed to be public servants–Out of all petitioners none was a Member of Board of Directors–Court has to see and satisfy- itself whether ‘reasonable grounds’ at least, prima-facie exist for believing that an accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life–In order to do so. Court is bound to make a tentative assessment of case of prosecution–If such reasonable grounds do not exist than grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception–Documents produced by prosecution clearly indicate that decision making matter of awarding contract was done at highest level is Prime Minister and Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources and that petitioners did not figure any where–Presence of petitioners is not longer required by investigating agency and there is no possibility of their tampering with record if they are enlarged on bail–There was no entrustment of property in the present case as far as petitioners are concerned–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C (Lahore) 1158
41. Rule of Consistency–Accused was empty-handed and used only one fist blow on the nose of complainant; but he had not repeated blow to any one–Accused confined in jail, his person was no more required by police–Other co-accused were already on bail and case of accused was at par with that of his co-accused–Principle of consistency being applicable–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr- C. (Lahore) 17 Case of petitioners is identical to that of their co-accused who has been attributed injury to deceased with sota–Injuries attributed to them of deceased are mostly of type of abrasion–Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed bail in such like cases–Rule of consistency will also come into play in petitioners case–They are behind bars for last about ten months–Though charge has been framed against them but admittedly so far no prosecution witness has been examined–Presiding Officer of Court concerned has been transferred and his substitute has not taken over–So, recording of evidence in the case in near future seemingly was not in sight–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 609 Offence u/Ss. 302/148/149 PPC–Mere lalkara was ascribed to petitioner in commission of crime alleged–Their co-accused had also been ascribed similar role–He was allowed bail by High Court–Rule of consistency will come into play in petitioners case–They were entitled to same relief–They were behind bars for last about one year–Commencement of trial in their case is no ground to refuse, them relief when’ their case has been found to be one for bail–Bail granted in the circumstances. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 664 Where one accused was granted bail and other co-accused who has also placed in similar and identical circumstances then rule of consistency requires that such co-accused be released on bail. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Quetta) 586 Co-accused granted bail by trial court, rejected bail of petitioner on totally perverse reasons–Instead of following rule of consistency and guidelines laid down by Superior Courts adopted different standard–Case of petitioner being at par with co-accused bail should have not been refused–Bail granted. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1293 Guide lines–In a case if there are several accused they should treated alike–If one accused is allowed bail, other accused against whom same offence is alleged and there is similarity of evidence and circumstances he should be allowed bail–Likewise when bail application of one accused is rejected bail cannot be granted to accused who is similarly placed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1293 Offence u/S. 409/109/34 PPC r/w Section 5(2) Act II Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947–Applicant had been operated for by-pass surgery and has been under constant medication and medical survellance–Report from National Institute of cardiovascular discuses also mentions about heart ailment of appellant–Other accused person already have been released on bail–Held: Accused is entitled to grant of bail 1st on ground of his illness’ as considering Medical certificate issued by National Institute of Cardio Vasicular diseases 2nd on rule of consistency as two main accused have already been released on bail–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Karachi) 676 Offence u/S./ 392/411 PPC Petitioner is net named with F.I.R. and was not picked up by complainant in identification test, it is yet to seen that if he can be held liable for offence U/S. 392 P.P.C. or not–So his case, is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt–While offence Section 411 PPC is riot covered under prohibitory clause of section i.e. 497 Cr.P.C.–His co-accused has been allowed bail–So, if seen from that angle, his case is identical to his co-accused–Thus rule of consistency will also come into play–He was behind the bars for the last four months and was previous non-convict–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 276 Offence u/S./ 392/411 PPCPe+itioner is net named with F.I.R. and was not picked up by complainant in identification test, it is yet to seen that if he can be held liable for offence U/S. 392 P.P.C. or not–So his case, is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt–While offence Section 411 PPC is riot covered under prohibitory clause of section i.e. 497 Cr.P.C.–His co-accused has been allowed bail–So, if seen from that angle, his case is identical to his co-accused–Thus rule of consistency will also come into play–He was behind the bars for the last four months and was previous non-convict–Bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 276 Conscious of rule of consistency, which must be followed in order to maintain balance and doctrine of equality law–Since co-accused has been admitted to bail by a Bench of Supreme Court, in similar circumstances on same charge, it would not be just, proper and reasonable to decline bail to petitioner–In perspective of third proviso it may further observe that petitioner cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period for act of Court in that there was a status quo for almost three years–It is well settled that no person shall suffer for act of Court–Since proceedings were stayed at the instance of co-accused and Supreme Court had itself ordered early hearing of appeal, petitioner cannot be found at fault for delay–Consistent with law and precedents set by Supreme Court–Held : Petitioner is entitled to equal treatment before law and, in view of rule of consistency, entitled to concession of bail petition converted into appeal and allowed. PLJ 2001 SC 1575
42. S- 497(1) Cr.P.C. 3 Proviso, clause (a)–Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, Articles 3/4–Bail–Grant of–Prayer for–Recovery of Heroin 1000 gms–Continuous detention of petitioner has exceeded two years–Nothing on record to show that petitioner is previous convict or a dangerous criminal or a desperate person–No case of instant nature stands registered against him–Bail granted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C- (Lah-) 57
43. 497 3rd Proviso sub-section (1) of Cr.P.C.– Offence U/Ss. 302/324/120-B/109/34 PPC–Contention that petitioner is not entitled to bail on grounds of proviso to 3rd Proviso of sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. and that special Court Syppression of Terrorist activities is governed by its own procedure of grant of bail U/S 5-A (8) of S.T.A. Act 1975–It was further contended that a hired assassin is dangerous criminal and is involved in terrorism–Confessional statement of petitioner is sufficient material in this respect–Confessional statement of petitioner will reveal that he is a hired assassin alongwith other hired assassins for murder of Gen Retd. Fazle Haq–Words “dangerous Criminal or “involved in terrorism” mentioned disjunctively in proviso to 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. is an exception to section 497 Cr.P.C.–Conspiracy to murder deceased was hatched in tribal area wherein petitioner fully participated–There is likelihood of abscondence of petitioner like other proclaimed offenders in the case residing in tribal area in case petitioner is allowed bail on any ground whatsoever–Petitioner dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 886
44. Search–Requirements of Section 103 Cr. P.C. are not always absolute, in sense of failure of compliance thereof rendering search to. be illegal. PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Karachi) 175
45. Second bail application – First bail application of accused had already been dismissed on merits by High Court— Previously High Court after having fully heard the counsel of accused and going through the facts of the case had found sufficient material on record to connect the accused with the offence— Plea of ineffective firing had been taken on behalf of accused— Accused had been captured on the Spot and a. 22 bore pistol was allegedly recovered from him— High Court in its previous order had also taken into consideration the incidence of such crime— No exceptional circumstances existed in the case to review the earlier order— Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Kar. 62
46. Solitary ingredient of extra-judicial confession, is not enough to prove a barrier against admission to bail–Two P.Ws out of three P.Ws have got sworn in affidavits to the effect that petitioner did not make confessional statement before them–Held: Involvement of petitioner-accused is that of further inquiry–Bail granted– PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 322
47. Status of fugitive from law–It is settled law that fugitive from law loses some of normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence dis-entitles absconder to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case–Offence charged in falls in prohibitory clause of S. 497 bail petition dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 255
48. Statutory delay— Offence U/SS. 302/148/149 PPC -Contention that challan again petitioner has been submitted to learned trial court on 28.6.1994 and that trial of petitioner has not concluded till date, therefore, he is entitled to being enlarged on bail in accordance with provisions of third proviso of sob-section (i) of section 497 Cr.P.C–Petitioner was an “absconder” for a long time and as a result his co-accused was sent up for trial separately and that by the time petitioner surrendered himself to law, record of case was not available to learned trial eon& to try him as same was being requisitioned requisitioned by superior courts i.e High Court and Honourable Supreme Court on different. occasions that had led to delay being caused in the conclusion of trial–It has been further taken notice of that petitioner has not been vigilant enough to engage a counsel for himself or to move a petition for appointment of a counsel on his behalf by learned trial court till 14.1.1996 i.e on the date defence counsel was appointed on his behalf by learned trial court—Therefore, High Court is of the considered view that under facts and circumstances of case provisions (b) of third proviso of sub-section (1) of section 497 CrP_C. cannot be invoked—Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1144 Applicant is in continuous custody for more than two years and charge sheet was filed on after lapse of more than two years–Learned Sessions Judge while rejecting bail application did not discuss or mention grounds in respect of statutory delay–It has been reported by Superintendent that conduct of applicant/accused is satisfacotry–Held: Applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail as he was in custody without his fault and concerned Investigating Officer and the SHO of the relevant police station were proved themselves to be negligent in performance of their duties for non-submission of the charge-sheet within stipulated period–Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 733 Contentions, that appellant’s in continuous Jail custody and delay in conclusion of trial is not occasioned by him–Appellant neither previous convict nor hardened, or of desperate character–Held : Trial could not be concluded due to delaying tactics adopted by appellant–Right from date of submission of challan applicant or authorised person on his behalf moving applications for adjournments and false and frivolous applications against Presiding Officer for getting case transferred which resulted in delay of conclusion of trial–Accused not entitled to be released on bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1562 Offence u/s 302, 324, 337-A (ii), 148 and 149 PPC–It is a matter of record that more than one adjournments of case had taken place on account of petitioner’s counsel being not available–Therefore, benefit of third proviso to S. 497(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be extended in favour of petitioner as delay in trial of case had partly occasioned on account of adjournments secured by his counsel–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1674 Contention, Period of two years has elapsed but trial has not yet concluded–Mere fact that Criminal Revision was filed by petitioner against order of trial Court should not amount to any overt act or omission on part of petitioner–Held : On number of dates adjournments took place at instance of petitioner and ultimately on account of filing of Gr. Revision proceedings were stayed, resulting in delay of disposal of case–Delay is partly attributed to petitioner which dis-entitles him benefit of statutory ground for grant of bail–Bail declined. PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Lahore) 173 Petitioner in continuous detention for two yearly–Delay in conclusion of trial not attributable to petitioner–Petitioner not a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal–No allegation against petitioner about involvement in terrorism–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 348 Bail cannot be refused on account of delay in trial which occurred after expiry of statutory period-Similary, delay occurring due to adjournments granted by court on account of professional engagement of defence counsel, cannot be attributed to the accused. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 348 Petitioners are in judicial lock-up and trial has not concluded–Hold: Delay in trial occurred due to death of Presiding officer and since then no successor has been appointed in his place–Petitioners are principal accused therefore, instead of releasing them on bail on statutory ground, Sessions Judge of area was directed to try case himself or make it over to any other Additional Sessions Judge and to conclude trial within three months. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lahore) 346 While granting bail court has to see whether benefit under third proviso was or was not forfeited on account of added condition in fourth proviso, namely whether accused was a previous convict, who, in opinion court was hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1701 Method of calculation of period–Mathematcial method of calculating pendency of proceedings while accused remained in custody and substracting from it the period accused sought adjournments–Held: This is not proper mode of reckoning period envisaged relevant to statutory delay in third proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 497 Cr.P.C.–Even an adjournment of single day at the instance of accused, may have repercussions and reverberations, generating far greater period of inaction in a case–Prosecution may be pushed off track for a longer period than covered . by bare period of adjournment–This aspect,obviously, had to be considered, in specific facts of case while granting bail on ground of statutory delay. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) Continuous period of detention of petitioner is 4½ years–Only three P.Ws. have been examined–Trial being conducted in perfunctory manner–Petitioner not responsible for protracted trial–Bail allowed in the circumstances. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Lah-) 54 Statutory Ground:- Islamic Penal Laws Act, Ss. 6/15 read with Ss. 460/307, 84, APC, 13/20/65 Arms Act, and Section 17 (3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Act–Bail on statutory grounds–Computation of period–While computing period of arrest or..detention, it was not date of presentation of’ challan but date when accused-petitioners were arrested, which is to be taken into consideration. PLJ 1997 Shariat Court (AJ&K) 49 Burden upon an accused person seeking bail on ground of statutory delay as provided in Third Proviso is to the extent to show that required period has expired and that trial has not concluded–He is required to show that such delay was not caused by his acts or by act of his representatives which includes his advocate–To disentitle an accused person for purpose of availing privileges of third proviso to S. 497(1) Cr.P.C. burden is upon prosecution to show that such accused falls within any of categories as mentioned in fourth proviso–Such burden can be discharged by placing sufficient material before court for purpose of forming an opinion. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1675 Delay was not caused by prosecution and instead it was either because of acts and omissions of accused or unavoidable reason which would not be attributable to prosecution or defence and probably was also beyond control of Trial Court–This is correct that ground of delay was considered while disposing of bail application of co-accused of petitioner, but concession of bail was not extended to them merely on ground of delay, rather their. case on merits was also considered and having found distinguishable to that of accused who have been attributed effective role of causing firearm injuries to deceased were allowed bail and thus case against petitioner being not at par to them on merits cannot be judged in light of consideration for grant of bail to co-accused–Perusal of order sheet would show that conclusion of trial after framing of charge was delayed due to defence–Arguments of learned counsel that statutory ground for grant of bail was matured even before framing of charge would be of no avail to petitioner who having direct motive against deceased has played major role in occurrence and consequently notwithstanding grant of bail to other accused while considering their case on merits along with delay taken place in conclusion of trial, petitioner would not be entitled to grant of bail merely for reason that trial was not concluded within statutory period. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1142 it is regretted to observe that trial Court has not assigned reasons of non-compliance of directions of High Court while dismissing bail application of applicant on ground of statutory _delay, particularly in light of directions of Court, trial Court ought to have assigned reasons of non-compliance of direction of High Court–Keeping in view above facts and case law reported in 1999 SCMR 2147 applicant is granted bail. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Karachi) 760 Personal ground of Advocate being unwell or being busy before some other court, no doubt, could be considered to be a valid ground for adjournment, but the repeated return of the witnesses from court without being examined might seriously affect the prosecution, because on the next date possible for one or the other reason witnesses, who had appeared, might not attend and in such event the accused or his counsel were bound to face entire risk for non-conclusion of the trial-Case of accused, therefore, was not fit for exercise of discretion in his favour and to grant him bail-Bail application was dismissed accordingly. PLD 2003 Kar. 300 Prayer for–Offence U/S 302/34 PPC–It cannot be held at bail stage that conduct of accused/petitioner was that of a desperado and dangerous criminal on basis of what at present are just allegations levelled; and that said allegations per se fail to establish that petitioner is a “hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism–It has been further taken notice of that the State has not been able to point out delay in concluding trial of case, in question, can be attributed to petitioner in any manner to being his case for bail out of ambit of statutory provisions–It was further confirmed on behalf of state that petitioner is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal–Bail Granted– PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 968 Act or omission of co-accused, when being jointly tried cannot deprive others of benefit of bail under section 497(1), proviso 3rd Cr.P.C.–Court is required to examine case of each accused individually–Even adjournment sought by defence counsel representing accused on account of his engagement in professional work cannot make a ground to deny bail to him on statutory ground. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1713 Delay of more than two years which has given applicants justification to lnvoke third proviso to S. 497 Cr.P.C. -No material has been brought on record to show that applicants are previously convicted offenders or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals–Also the delay in trial which is more than two years is not attributable to accused–Applicants are squarely entitled to be released on bail–Application accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr-C. (Karachi) 601 In murder cases if for any genuine reason counsel for accused is unable to appear on a particular date case may be adjourned to next day or two or three days, thereafter, but if adjournment is granted for a longer period without there being any such request from defence counsel delay thus taking place in conclusion of trial cannot be considered against accused. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1713 Surrender by the accused before the trial Court appeared to be a managed affair inasmuch as he had remained fugitive from the law for a very long period without intimation to the Trial Court and he was granted bail immediately on filing of the bail application before the sessions court-Conduct and behavior of the accused indicated that he had no intention to surrender and had been looking for circumstances to be in his favour to arrange for surrender before the Trial Court-Had the accused been having the least possible respect and regard for the process of law or the courts, he would have surrendered before the Trail Courts long before-Accused along with his co-accused had gone to the deceased at the instigation of the accused with a clear direction to kill him-Deceased had been fired at by none else but by the son of the accused-Abscondence of accused had also disentitled him to grant of bail-Impugned order passed by Sessions court granting bail to accused was not based on sound principles of law-Bail allowed to accused was recalled accordingly. PLD 2003 Kar. 332 Petitioner not hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal–Detention exceeding one year–No other case of instant nature against him–Entitled to bail–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 70 Bail during trial–Sought on ground of expiry of statutory period–Petitioner is behind bars continuously for last 2 years and 10 months and trial is still at stage of evidence and there being no expectation of early conclusion of trial, petitioner is entitled to be extended benefit of statutory right of grant of bail–Held: There was unjustified delay in conclusion of trial without any contribution of petitioner and bail on statutory ground cannot be refused–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 975 Bail sought in a case registered under Ss. 337-F(VI)/337-A(I)/147/148 PPC for causing grievous hurt–2nd bail petition before High Court–Bail sought on ground of non-conclusion of trial within statutory period of one year–Held no fresh ground available that petitioners themselves responsible for delay in conclusion of trial–No case for bail made out–Petition dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore)1310 Due to lapse of statutory period of one year about petitioners continuous detention it is held that he has earned a valuable right for his admission of bail–There is nothing before court to make out that petitioner is a previously convicted offercer or is a hardened desperate or dangerous criminal–Trial has not et started even after submission of challan–Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 784
49. Successive bail applications:- Filing of successive bail applications in the same case by the same person or his co-accused – Clarification of Zubair’s case (PLD 1986 SC 173) – Zubair’s case reported as PLD 1986 SC 173 had laid emphasis on vital issue that subsequent bail applications must be placed before the same Judge who had dealt with the first bail application and that the counsel was duty-bound to mention in the bail application filed by him the fact of having filed the previous application with the result thereof Said judgment had been delivered to avoid the conflicting decisions in bail applications-Practice of withdrawing the bail petition from one Judge and then making a fresh application soon thereafter so that the same may be dealt with by another Judge was also disapproved – Principle initiated in Zubair’s case was based upon salutary principle, inasmuch as, the practice of filing the successive bail applications in the same case by the same accused or his co-accused and getting it fixed before a different Judge, is not only likely to result in conflicting judgments but also tends to encourage malpractice by accused persons and to bring the judicial system into disrepute because in the event of a conflicting order being given by another Judge in a subsequent application an impression, though false, may be created that the second order was based on extraneous considerations, 2001 SCMR 1047.PLD 1986 SC 173; Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2000; 1968 SCMR 924 and PLD 1984 SC 341 ref. Two bail applications filed earlier by accused in the High Court were not pressed and were withdrawn and the same were not disposed of on merits – Third bail application filed by accused, in the circumstances, was not hit by the dictum laid down in Zubair’s case reported as PLD 1986 SC 173 – Impugned order passed by High Court rejecting the said bail application on such ground was consequently set aside and the case was remanded to High Court for decision on merits of the bail application in accordance with law. 2001 SCMR 1047 The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others PLD 1986 SC 173; Muhammad Riaz v. The State Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2000; Farid v. Ghulam Hussain 1968 SCMR 924 and Khan Beg v. Sajawal PLD 1984 SC 341 ref. Withdrawal of an application simpliciter does not mean that the same was dealt with on merits or on the ground pressed Situation, however, would be different if the earlier bail application was decided on merits and in such case while deciding the subsequent bail application, of course the ground which was not urged although the same was available would -not constitute a fresh ground justifying the filing of second bail application – Propriety requires that the bail application dismissed in terms of order impugned be heard by the same Bench who had earlier allowed the withdrawal of the first bail application. 2001 SCMR 1047
50. Suckling child of Accused Girl:- Petitioner has a suckling child aged hardly about 14 years–Welfare of suckling child demands that child should not be made to suffer in jail for the murder allegedly committed by his mother–Mother should be in a position to look after child properly–Petitioner enlarged on bail. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 419
51. Supply, girls to people zina against consideration of money–Allegation of–‘ummy custom only substantial link and basis of prosecution case in respect of so transaction; who has not been examined, recovery of marked notes possession of accused S or arrival of both accused on rickshaw at given site would not create/or be a reasonable ground available with prosecution to hold that prima facie case for commission of alleged offence stands made out against accused. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Quetta) 876
52. Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act:- When person is charged under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act, 1975, he shall be presumed to be guilty and his bail application shall not be maintainable in law and there would he no room to teach upon merits of matter—Such intepretation is respectfully not borne oat by general principles of law of evidence and case law on subject–Held : At bail stage section-8 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act has no bearing or consequence–Held further Prosecution has not been able to make out reasonable case or discharge prima facie burden placed upon it–Bail allowed–Per Dr. Ghous Muhammad, J. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 902 Question of–we agree with conclusion drawn by Dr. Ghous Muhammad Judge–He observed that clause (c) to schedule of S.T.A. only brings within its mischief’ cannon, grenade, bomb, rocket or light or heavy automatic or semi-automatic weapons such as Klashinkov, G-III Rifle or any other type of assault riffle”–Further he observed that nothing was brought on record that weapons recovered in these cases fall within this clause of Arms spelt out in clause (c) of Schedule of S.T.A. Act 1975–In these case mostly weapons alleging recovered from these applicants were semiautomatic or automatic pistols and those commonly known as T.T. Pistols–Ordinance No. XL of 1995 was promulgated on 9th April, 1995, whereby Suppression of Terrorist (Special Court) Ordinance. 1975 was amended and by virtue of this amendment in schedule of S.T.A. Act, in clause c) words” semi-automatic or automatic pistols or T.T. pistols were inserted”–Several Ordinances in this regard have been issued and last one being ordinance No. XII of 1996 was issued on 28th February 1996–Thus, Semi-automatic or automatic pistols and T.T. Pistol, are covered by S.T.A. Act–Held : Applicants are entitled to bail—Per: Nazim Hessian Siddiqui, J. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 902   Arrest of applicant and recovery of 30 bore Pistol–Grant of bail–Prayer for–Presumption of guilt under Section 9–Name of applicant appears in F.I.R. and weapon is said to have been recovered from him–There is presumption under section 8 of suppression of Terrorist Activities Act and prima facie case is made out–Bail rejected–Per Ammanullah Abbasi, J. PLJ 1997 Cr-C- (Karachi) 902 Benefit covered by four provisos to S. 497(1) Cr. P.C. Can legitimately be extended to a person seeking bail under section 5A(S) of Art. A person under the Act may (Substantially) take advantage of case falling outside pale of prohibitory clause in Section 497(i) Cr. P.C. or with provisos to that sub-section, broadly, creating exception in favour of accused categorised as under age of 16 years or woman or sick or infirm person or those who are found entitled to benefit of statutory delay. PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Karachi) 175
53. Suppression of Terrorist Activities –Bail was granted by Magistrate section 30–Cancelled by learned special judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities–Challenge to–It is not disputed that only schedule offences are triable by a special court upon submission of challan or complaint, as case may be, and unless case is not sent to special court, order of nature curtailing liberty of a person by special court under S. 497(5) Cr.P.C. interfering in order passed by a court other then special court would be coram-nonjudice–Exercise of jurisdiction in a case, which is not before special court, by said court was not proper and cancellation of bail of petitioner under S. 6(1) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 read with S. 497(5) Cr.P.C. by special court at this stage is hereby recalled–Bail granted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 968
54. Suspension of sentence:–Bail plea is urged on the ground that complaint was made against petitioner after delay of fourteen months and further there was animosity between petitioner and complainant–It is also contended before Supreme Court that trial Court in its judgment has discussed case of defence first and then adverted to evidence of prosecution–Principle that it is basic duty of prosecution to prove case against accused beyond doubt even if defence plea is found to be defective has been disregarded–It is also submitted that complainant who appeared as P.W. 3 claimed that petitioner had demanded Rs. 2,000/- as court fees which were paid to him and two or three days thereafter complainant came to know that court fees was not required, but for about fourteen months he remained silent and did not make any complaint–PW I who claims to be an eye witness, is friend of complainant and has admitted to be accused in a murder case–Complainant has not been able to satisfactorily explain delay ln fi ling complaint–Held: In view of what is stated above and particularly being impressed by fact that sentence involved-is only three years, Supreme Court confirms bail already granted. PLJ 1997 SC 118 Offence u/S. 420 PPC read with section 5(1)(4) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947–After conviction and sentence by trial Court, petitioner filed appeal in High Court and during its pendency applied for bail and suspension of sentence which was declined on short ground that disposal of bail application on grounds urged would involve deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be done at stage of bail applicutlon–As against this Supreme Court is of the considered view that bail application should have been disposed of on merits even if that required appraisement of evidence for simple reason that sentence involved being three years is very low–Possibility cannot be ruled out that convict would serve out sentence before his appeal becomes ripe for hearing. PLJ 1997 SC 118
55. Triple muder–Offence of–Bail granted by Sessions Judge but cancelled by High Court–Challenge to–Complainant, a young boy of 16 or 17 years, first made a complaint against his brother-in-law and then in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., resiled from it and accused petitioners–There is no direct evidence in case–Except statement of complainant, there is no effective material to reasonably connect petitioners with crime–Petitioners have denied to have made any extra-judicial confession–Held: It is a case of further inquiry and bail could not be cancelled in absence of any direct evidence–Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 SC 155
56. Two opposing factions are being accused for death of deceased–Two version, in fact, mutually exclude each other–More-over FIR lodged at the instance of father of deceased does not explain injuries suffered by petitioner–All accused belonging to complainant party are on bail–Under the doctrine of consistency, petitioner is admitted to bail–Bail granted. PLJ 1988 Cr.C. (Lahore) 752
57. Two versions:- There are two versions about same occurrence which had taken place due to brawl leading to a tussle between Meo and Jat brother hood–Petition was not named in F.I.R. and he was assigned the role of ineffective firing through a supplementary statement–Case was recorded on 15-9-1997 and thereafter no step has been taken nor any conclusion has yet been drawn–Case appears to be of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 428
58. Uawitnessed crime:- Case of two versions–Plea of innocence of petitioner supported by three Investigating Officers including S.P. Crimes–Later on investigation conducted by Inspector, under orders of D.I.G. Police, involved the petitioner–In view of conflictING opinion of Police, case of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr-C. (Lahore) 144
59. Under law grant of bail is rule and its refusal is only an exception–If one accused is otherwise entitled to bail there is hardly any justification to keep him behind bars even for a movement–Deprivation of liberty which is a cherished right of a person is equal to conviction. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1293
60. Vicarious liability — It cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule of law that question of vicarious liability cannot be determined at the stage of bail – If from the circumstances of can be gathered that the accused-Appellants pre-planned a scheme hatched a conspiracy and in prosecution of that plan or conspiracy they participated in the commission of the offence-The question of vicarious liability applies with full force – However, the same has to be ascertained cautiously without entering into detailed scrutiny and appreciation of the merits of prosecution-Section 149, Cr. P. C. itself does not create a new offence-It is declaratory of the vicarious liability of he members of unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offence as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object – However, in order to ‘ bring a case within the Section the act must be done with a view to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly or it must be shown that   the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly-Is the one which the accused knew would be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object-Held that: Such knowledge may be reasonably inferred in the nature of the assembly their arms or their behavior at or before scene of action-Further held: That for the application of Section 149, Cr. P. C. it is necessary that: i. That one should be a member of unlawful assembly. Ii. that in prosecution of common object of that assembly an offence should be committed by a member of unlawful assembly; and iii. That the offence should be of such a nature that the members of that assembly knew that offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object. PSC 1996 SC (AJ&K) 127 = PSC (Crl.) 1995 SC (AJ&K) 909
61. Victim aged 13/14 years alleging Zina, kidnapping and abduction in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.–No previous enmity between parties–Allegations are of serious nature. Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 381 Since offences fall within prohibitory clause and important witnesses such as abductee who remained with culprits is yet to be examined–Held: High Court is of the view that this is not stage to allow bail–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Karachi) 1184
62. Victim Mst. R and PW Mst. R have exonerated both accused to have committed offence alleged against them–Investigating officer has also identified Mst. R and Mst. R in Court–They stated that their statements were true and voluntary and that justice be done to petitioners as they were not actual offenders–Case has become of further inquiry–Bail allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr. C. (Lahore) 426 Tantative assessment of record shows that petitioner’s date of birth as per Result Intimation by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is 17.4.1978 while date of occurrence of offence is 2.5.1996–In this manner his age come to 18 years and 15 days–Co-accused who was also attributed a similar role has been released on bail–In case of Khadim Hussain versus State (NLR 1982 Criminal 666 S.C.) where co-accused was admitted to bail by Sessions Judge and High Court rejected bail petition on ground that his earlier bail petition had been dismissed Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed bail on ground that case of petitioner was similar to that of his co-accused released on bail by Sessions Judge–Similarly in case of Abdul Sattar versus State (1982 SCMR 909) where role attributed to petitioner was similar to that of co-accused rule of consistency was applied even in a murder case and bail was allowed to petitioner–In instant case investigation is over–Petitioner remained absconding and had been arrested in some other case on 4.8.1998 and since then he is in jail–No marks of violence have been found on victim (gril) as per Medico-Legal Report which also shows that she was used to sexual intercourse and that during investigation even co-accused was found innocent–All these factors taken together and without going deep into merits of case, case of petitioner is that of further probe–As such bail is granted subject to his furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of trial Court– PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1385 Genuineness of Nikah Nama can only be gone into at time of trial of case–Veracity of testimony of abductee can only be tested after she appears or is produced in trial Court as a witness–Abductee has clearly implicated petitioner to have prepared a forged Nikah deed and has denied her marriage–Challan has already been sent to court–Bail refused. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1186 It. enough to say that Special Court constituted under Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 has taken cognizance of matter–Petitioner is named in F.I.R. and had played specific role in silencing victim by putting his hand over her month when his co-accused committed offence of Zina-bil-Jabr–It is true that name of petitioner is not mentioned in statement of victim u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. but she has clearly mentioned that one of four accused had put his hand over her month while other had committed Zina-bil-Jbar with her–Even otherwise, provisions relating to hail contained in section 497 Cr.P.C. have been specifically excluded section 30(3) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997–Intention of Legislature is quite clear that once case has been taken cognizance by Special Court for offence falling within Schedule of Act, no Court other than special court shall have power or jurisdiction to grant bail–Held: Provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked at this stage nor petitioner deserves to be released on bail on merits of case–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 651 Case was got registered with delay of 20/21 days–This fact alone casts a serious douit upon prosecution case and makes case of petitioner of further inquiry which clearly falls within ambit of S. 497(2) CrP.C.–Petitioner was arrested on 18.11.1995 and challan was statedly submitted on 25.11.1995–Since’ then no substantive progress has so far been made in trial–Petitioner cannot be kept in judicial lock-up for an indefinite period and bail cannot be withheld as punishment because law does not countenance it–Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1621 In abduction cases, people do not rush to police and try to first exhaust all their sources to trace out abductee and accused–As such, delay in registration of cases in such like cases is not fatal to prosecution–As per Rule 22 of Police Rules, 1934, no examination by a Medical Officer of a living women’s person shall be made without her consent and without a written order from a Magistrate hence, absence of medical examination is not enough to make High Court exercise of discretion for granting bail to petitioners–FIR and statements of PWs including abductee are enough to prima facie connect petitioners/accused with occurrance–Abductee was detained by petitioner/accused for a sufficient time which is a strong circumstance against him towards commission of zina. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 772 Offence u/S. 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 read with S. 377 P.P.C.- Sodomy–Held: Tentative assessment of material available on record is that coming of report of Chemical Examiner of a victim examined after 101 days having semen makes case of further inquiry–Petitioner granted bail. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lahore) 959 Offence U/S. 12 of Ord. VII of 1979 and S. 377 PPC–Age of petitioner is about 15 years as per record–According to medical report no internal or external injury on relevant parts of body of victim was found–Petitioner is in judicial lock-up since last more than three months–Prima facie a case U/S. 12 of Zina Ordinance is not made out-from contents of FIR, whereas S. 377 PPC has been deleted from FIR–Bail granted in view of age of petitioner and fact that he is a student. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lahore) 602 Offence u/S. 12 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with S. 377 Penal Code 1860–On date of alleged occurrence, age of petitioner was 11 years and 9 months–Headmaster of Government Primary School, also verified this fact; that there is a delay of 3 days in lodging FIR and even medical examination of victim ,was conducted after three days; that as per report of Medical Officer, petitioner was incapable of performing sexual intercourse; that petitioner was behind bars for last more than five months; though challan has been submitted to learned trial Court, yet there is no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future and; that petitioner is required to be tried under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as he is below age of 18 years–Keeping in view all facts bail granted. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 393
63. Woman–Ground for Bail:- As a result of Investigation, nothing favourable to petitioner lady had come on record and she was found to be one of culprits–In consequence of investigation it had been found that her co-accused had committed offence in consultation with her and also as a result of her instigation–Mere fact that petitioner is a lady does not entitle her to concession of bail–Petitioner is alleged to have instigated murder of deceased–Under peculiar circumstances of this case, she is not entitled to concession of bail. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 126