SCMR 2026

2026 PLP 792 (SCMR)

HAKEEM alias Peer — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 1322 of 2025, decided on 9th September, 2025.
Honorable Judges
Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2026 PLP 792 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ
Parties HAKEEM alias Peer — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 792 (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 792 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 792 (SCMR) (HAKEEM alias Peer — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • M. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Farmanullah, S.I. and Umar Badshah, ASI for the State.
  • M. Tariq Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (via video link from Peshawar).
  • 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. The record has been perused with their able assistance.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order dated 11.07.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench passed in Crl. Misc. B.A. No. 267-B of 2025).

S.497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 406, 489-F & 34

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)

Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, criminal breach of trust, dishonest issuance of a cheque, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

It was not disputed that the alleged offences fell in the category of non-prohibitory clause under Section 497, Cr.P.C.

Co-accused was alleged to have entered into agreements with various persons

Whether or not the offences to the extent of the petitioner were attracted required further probe

Complainant and the State had not been able to show any exceptional circumstances so as to decline the concession of post-arrest bail

While considering the grant of bail, where offences fell within the non-prohibitory clause, the grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule, and might be declined in exceptional cases

Extra-ordinary and exceptional cases, inter alia, included likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated

Thus, a case of further inquiry was made out in the present case

Investigation had been concluded to the extent of the petitioner and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose

Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

S.497

Bail order

Observations of the Court

Scope

Observations made in the bail order are based on tentative assessment of the available record and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. M. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Farmanullah, S.I. and Umar Badshah, ASI for the State. M. Tariq Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (via video link from Peshawar).

Judgment & Decree

ATHAR MINALLAH, J.

The petitioner has sought leave against the order of the High Court dated 11.07.2025, whereby his petition seeking post-arrest bail was dismissed. The petitioner was nominated in crime report No. 317 of 2025, dated 17.05.2025, registered at P.S. Karak, District Karak for commission of the alleged offences under sections 420, 406, 489-F and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ('P.P.C.'). The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail and his petition was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 14.06.2025. His bail petition was also dismissed by the appellate fora i.e. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karak vide order dated 20.06.2025. The learned High Court had also subsequently declined his post-arrest bail vide the impugned order dated 11.07.2025.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. The record has been perused with their able assistance.

3. It is not disputed that the alleged offences fall in the category of non-prohibitory clause under section 497 of the Cr.P.C. The co-accused was alleged to have entered into agreements with various persons. Whether or not the offences to the extent of the petitioner are attracted requires further probe. As it is already noted, the offences fall under the non-prohibitory clause and the learned counsel for the complainant and the State counsel have not been able to show any exceptional circumstances so as to decline the concession of post-arrest bail. This Court has consistently held that while considering the grant of bail, where offences fall within the non-prohibitory clause, the granting of bail has to be considered favourably as a rule, but may be declined in exceptional cases. The extra ordinary and exceptional cases, inter alia, includes likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated

1. We are therefore, of the opinion that a case of further inquiry is made out. The investigation has been concluded to the extent of the petitioner and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.

4. In view of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. The concession of post-arrest bail is extended in favour of the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Needless to mention that the observations made in this order are based on tentative assessment of the available record and they shall not, in any manner, prejudice the trial proceedings. JK/H-7/SC Appeal allowed. 1 Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), Subhan Khan v. The State (2002 SCMR 1797), Tariq Bashir and others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Raja Jafar Tariq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708).