2026 PLP 766 (SCMR)
WAJID UR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus LATIF UR REHMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2026 PLP 766 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ |
| Parties | WAJID UR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus LATIF UR REHMAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 766 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 766 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 766 (SCMR) (WAJID UR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus LATIF UR REHMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shan Asghar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (Through Video Link Peshawar).
- Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2 (Through Video Link Peshawar).
- Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Dilawar Shah, Inspector and Ijaz, ASI for the State.
- 2. After having learned counsel of the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Advocate General, we observe that according to FIR, four unknown persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed robbery and took away cash of Rs. 27,00,000/- some foreign currency, gold ornaments, three laptops etc. The petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2024, however, he was nominated by the complainant on 28.11.2024. We have asked from the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Advocate General whether any identification parade was arranged for, the answer is 'NO'. Learned Additional Advocate General nor the learned counsel for the complainant could give any plausible explanation as to why the identification parade was not arranged for when in the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the inmates of the house can identify the culprits if brought before them. The High Court declined the bail on the ground that the statement of some jewelers was recorded who claimed that the petitioner and the other co-accused has sold gold ornaments to them but surprisingly said jewelers have received stolen articles but were not made accused in this case for offence under Section 411, P.P.C. It is also brought on the record that one USB was given to the Police Officer showing CCTV footage but surprisingly even the said footage was not shown to the complainant and the eye-witnesses to identify the persons mentioned in the said video footage. It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that two other FIRs have been registered against the petitioner but we observe that in the said FIRs unknown persons were shown to be robbers and the petitioner has not been convicted in any case. In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (One million) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, concerned.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order/judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.M. B.A. No. 349-P of 2025).
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411
Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property
Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with his co-accused trespassed into the house of complainant and committed robbery and took away Rs. 27,00,000/- in cash, some foreign currency, gold ornaments, three laptop, etc
Petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2024, however, he was nominated by the complainant on 28.11.2024
Record showed that no identification parade was arranged for
No plausible explanation had been given by complainant as to why the identification parade was not arranged for when in the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the inmates of the house could identify the culprits if brought before them
High Court declined the bail on the ground that the statement of some jewellers was recorded who claimed that the petitioner and the other co-accused had sold gold ornaments to them but surprisingly said jewellers had received stolen articles but were not made accused in this case for offence under Section 411, P.P.C.
Record showed that one USB was given to the Police Officer showing CCTV footage but surprisingly even the said footage was not shown to the complainant and the eye-witnesses to identify the persons mentioned in the said video footage
It was alleged by complainant that two other FIRs had been registered against the petitioner but in the said FIRs unknown persons were shown to be robbers and the petitioner had not been convicted in any case
In such eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further inquiry falling under Subsection (2) of Section 497,Cr.P.C.
Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances, and petitioner was enlarged on bail.
S. 497
Scope
Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and have no bearing upon any subsequent proceedings before the Trial Court. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Dilawar Shah, Inspector and Ijaz, ASI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
Post-arrest bail was declined to the petitioner by the High Curt through impugned order dated 10.02.2025 in case FIR No. 249 dated 21.03.2024 registered under Sections 392 and 411 (added later on) of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) at Police Station Pabbi, District Nowshera. Hence, instant petition for leave to appeal.
2. After having learned counsel of the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Advocate General, we observe that according to FIR, four unknown persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed robbery and took away cash of Rs. 27,00,000/- some foreign currency, gold ornaments, three laptops etc. The petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2024, however, he was nominated by the complainant on 28.11.2024. We have asked from the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Advocate General whether any identification parade was arranged for, the answer is 'NO'. Learned Additional Advocate General nor the learned counsel for the complainant could give any plausible explanation as to why the identification parade was not arranged for when in the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the inmates of the house can identify the culprits if brought before them. The High Court declined the bail on the ground that the statement of some jewelers was recorded who claimed that the petitioner and the other co-accused has sold gold ornaments to them but surprisingly said jewelers have received stolen articles but were not made accused in this case for offence under Section 411, P.P.C. It is also brought on the record that one USB was given to the Police Officer showing CCTV footage but surprisingly even the said footage was not shown to the complainant and the eye-witnesses to identify the persons mentioned in the said video footage. It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that two other FIRs have been registered against the petitioner but we observe that in the said FIRs unknown persons were shown to be robbers and the petitioner has not been convicted in any case. In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (One million) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, concerned.
3. The observations made by us are tentative in nature and will have no bearing upon any subsequent proceedings before the trial Court. JK/W-3/SC Appeal allowed.