Further Inquiry

No doubt, the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., yet that alone was not a valid ground to decline bail to the petitioner, particularly when his case squarely fell within the ambit of Section 337-N(2), P.P.C., a provision that might appropriately be considered even at the bail stage

Gravity or horror of a heinous crime, by itself, could not obstruct the grant of bail if the circumstances otherwise rendered the guilt of the accused as calling for further inquiry; nor could bail be withheld as a substitute for punishment

In the present case, the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting denial of bail

As the petitioner had been in custody since 24.04.2025, no recovery was to be made from him and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future

FIR itself reflected an unexplained delay of 14 days in its lodgment, for which no plausible justification was available on the record

Such inordinate delay, prima facie, eroded the spontaneity of the occurrence and created room for deliberation and consultation

Record showed that a co-accused had already been admitted to bail; hence, on the principle of consistency, the petitioner was also entitled to the same relief

Background of previous enmity between the parties, as reflected from FIR lodged by the complainant under Section 406, P.P.C., further emphasized the need for cautious assessment

In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner squarely called for further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose

Refusal of bail in such situation would be contrary to the settled principle that bail was the rule and refusal was exception, which was to be invoked only upon the existence of exceptional grounds

Petitioner had made out a case for grant of post-arrest bail

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

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with others made firing upon his rival group, due to which a minor was hit and died, whereas two persons sustained firearm injuries

As per record, it was a case of cross firing between two group

Admittedly, minor died on account of firing of the rival group of the petitioner and his legal heirs also affected a compromise with the accused from the rival group

Joint role of cross firing was levelled in the FIR against the members/accused of both the parties

Although, it was mentioned in the contents of the FIR that one person of the first group was injured during the occurrence as he received a firearm injury on his right knee but it was not mentioned therein that who out of the four nominated accused of the second group caused the said single injury on the right knee of injured

Occurrence in the case took place on 08.01.2025 and injured attributed the injury on his right knee to petitioner, in his statement recorded under Section 161,Cr.P.C., on 14.02.2025

Injured made his statement for the first time after 01 month and 06 days of the occurrence

Although, it was alleged by the prosecutor that as the witness was injured, therefore, his statement could not be recorded earlier but he was time and again asked that as to whether any application was moved by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Medical Officer that as to whether the said injured was fit to make statement or not but he had conceded that no such application was moved before the Medical Officer by the Investigating Officer of the case

Moreover, the single injury attributed to petitioner was on the right knee of injured

Petitioner was armed with a firearm but he did not cause any injury on any vital part of the body of injured, who was at the mercy of the petitioner, therefore, attraction of offence under Section 324, P.P.C., against the petitioner required further probe and inquiry

Allegation of causing firearm injury on the right flank of deceased was levelled against the rival group of the petitioner and admittedly there was no allegation in that respect against the petitioner

Petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case

Furthermore, it was evident from the perusal of the contents of the FIR that both the parties were firing at each other at the time of occurrence and as such it was a case of cross-versions, therefore, it would be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence that as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon and as such a case for grant of post-arrest bail was made out in favour of the petitioner

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

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.

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.

Allegations against the accused/petitioner was that he was involved in the offence for receiving money for providing foreign employment

Petitioner was alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence under the Act of 2018

Prosecution's case was that the petitioner was nominated in the crime report pursuant to the information received by the Federal Investigation Authority

Allegedly, the premises from which passports and other incriminating documents were taken into possession were owned by the petitioner

Deputy Attorney General, who was present along with the Investigating Officer, was not able to show that sufficient incriminating material had been collected in order to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences

At this stage, prima facie, a case for further inquiry was made out because the question whether the offences alleged to have been committed were attracted to the extent of the petitioner required further probe

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

Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed, in circumstances.

Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night with the intent to commit an offence, theft committed in a building, tent, or vessel used for human habitation or property storage, dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they broke the locks of the complainant's spare parts shop and committed theft of spare parts worth Rs. 20,06,000/

It was an admitted position that no person was implicated in the FIR lodged on 31.08.2024, but after 10 days of its registration, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded by the police in which he, for the first time, implicated the present petitioner on the basis of some information received through a supposedly reliable source, but even the name of his source of information was never disclosed in the supplementary statement or to the police

Thus, the case required further inquiry and unless the trial was conducted and completed, the culpability of the present petitioner could not be proved

Mere statement of the prosecutor that the petitioner was involved in some other similar cases also did not hold water, for the reason that nothing was produced by the Investigating Officer or the prosecutor for consideration to that end

Prosecution had to demonstrate that it was in possession of sufficient material/evidence, constituting 'reasonable grounds' that an accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497,Cr.P.C., while for attaining bail, the accused had to show that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution and/or the defence plea taken by him created reasonable doubt/suspicion in the prosecution case and he was entitled to the benefit of bail

Basic idea was to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him, rather than letting him not behind bars

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed and the petitioners were allowed post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Recovery of heroin, ice, opium and charas (weighing differently) in total around 15 kilograms were recovered from secret cavities of the truck in which accused was also travelling

Narcotics were concealed from all individuals and the contraband items were recovered from secret cavities of vehicle in question

There was no evidence to suggest that accused was aware of presence of contraband items in concealed cavities of truck or had exclusive knowledge of the cavities in order to be subject to the provisions of Article 122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution had merely established presence of accused in truck at the time of its interception

Mere presence of accused in truck was not sufficient to implicate him in the case unless conspiracy or abetment of the offense was demonstrated and proven

Concept of collective or family liability was generally rejected by criminal law due to the fact that principle of actus reas (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind) attached liability to the individual who committed the act with intent

Case against accused was one of further inquiry

Bail was allowed.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)], S.9(1), Sr. No. (3)(c)

Possession and transportation of narcotic substances

Bail grant of

Further inquiry

Prosecution case was that two slabs of charas weighing 2040 grams was recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant

Record transpired that the raiding team had failed to record recovery process on video despite receiving prior information regarding the applicant (accused) being companion of another culprit from whose possession contraband was recovered on the said date of incident

Even otherwise, Art. 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, specifically permitted the usage of modern devices

Admittedly, the investigation had already been completed by submitting the challan and other incriminatory evidence in the Trial Court, meaning there probe or interrogation

Even otherwise, the recovery of contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the applicant (accused) was yet to be established during trail, which required recording of complete evidence, as such, till then the case of applicant (accused) fell within the ambit of further inquiry

When a case of further inquiry is made out, the concession of bail can be extended in favour of accused person, as a matter of right

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-applicant was that he along with others committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Murder of deceased remained un-witnessed

On same set of evidence, the nominated accused persons were granted bail and after full-fledged trial they were acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court; whereas co-accused was also discharged during course of investigation

There was no direct evidence available in this case connecting the applicant in the alleged murder

Prosecution mainly relied upon the alleged confession made by the applicant before the Police

Mere abscondence of an accused is not conclusive proof of his guilt; it is only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he is found guilty of the offence which cannot take the place of evidence; the value of abscondence, therefore, depends on the facts of each case

Abscondence is supporting evidence of the guilt of the accused, which is to be decided keeping in view the facts of the case

Mere abscondence is no ground to decline bail if, otherwise, the case of the accused is fit for bail on merits

Criminal trial's object is to make the accused face the trial and not punish an under trial prisoner for the offence alleged against him

Basic idea is to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him rather than rot behind bars

Bail cannot be withheld as punishment on an accusation of non-bailable offences against an accused

Application for bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that the Customs Clearing Agents and the middle men in connivance with the exporter/petitioner on the basis of fake Form-Es had made an export of indigenous products and had caused huge loss to the Government Exchequer in the shape of foreign exchange

As per record, the allegation against the petitioner was that he, while acting as Exporter had issued fake Form- Es pertaining to the export made by different Custom Clearing Agencies

Petitioner herein had denied his involvement in any import/export business and had relied on the bank statement stating that no such transaction had been made through his account

In such circumstances, the liability of the petitioner could only be proved or otherwise after a full-fledged trial

Petitioner was charged under Ss.16, 32(1)(2) & (32A) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with S.3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, punishable under Ss. 156(1), (14), (14A), 77 and 90 of the Customs Act, 1969, S.3(3) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, read with Para 3 of Exports Policy Order, 2016, and S.12(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Except subsection (14A), other sections were either bailable or merely entailed fine

Though subsection 14A provided maximum punishment up to 10 years but at the same time it provided for an alternate punishment of fine

Court while awarding punishment had the option either to award imprisonment or to inflict fine keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to some extent awarding quantum of punishment was within the discretion of the Court

Keeping in view the alternate punishment such fact by itself made the case of accused petitioner one of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the allegation of having issued a cheque valuing Rs. 24,210,000/- in favour of complainant to discharge his financial obligation, which upon presentation before the bank was dishonored due to insufficient funds

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., carries a maximum punishment of three years imprisonment and therefore, did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

In such category of offences, the grant of bail is a rule, whereas, refusal is an exception

It was alleged by the accused-petitioner that the cheque was neither issued dishonestly nor with the intent to defraud the complainant, but was merely furnished as a guarantee-cum-security cheque

In such circumstances, it would be a matter for determination during trial as to whether any business transaction actually existed between the parties and what was the true picture and purpose of the cheque in question

Said aspect, prima facie, rendered the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which father of the complainant got hit and succumbed to his injuries at the spot, while complainant remained unhurt

Perusal of record suggested that in the FIR complainant himself admitted that after the occurrence the present accused/petitioner along with co-accused decamped to nearby Forest

However, site plan/mapreflected that on north side there were mountains, on west and south there was barren land, while on east side was property of complainant

There was no mentioning of "Forest" at all in the site plan

Said aspect of the case clearly suggested that the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as described by the prosecution

Moreover, perusal of Medico-Legal Report reflected that deceased received two firearm injuries at his person but it would be determined at the time of trial that whose shot proved fatal

Apart from that fact the complainant had been shown at point No. 2, while accused/petitioner had been shown at point No. 4; and the distance between points 2 and 4 was 244 paces, so, the identification from such a distance one a question which made the case of prosecution one of further probe

Thus, in the said circumstances sufficient doubt was created in the mind of the Court regarding site plan, coupled with the fact that whose shot proved fatal which caused the death of deceased, a case of 'further inquiry' was made out in favour of the petitioner for the purposes of grant of bail

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Use of a forged document as genuine, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, abetment, common intention, electronic forgery and fraud, unauthorized use of identity information

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he misappropriated the invested amount of complainant

Perusal of the record revealed that the crime report failed to mention the exact date and time of the alleged occurrence

Only the year 2025 was mentioned in the FIR, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner along with co- accused partners of "V" Group of Companies, extorted large sums of money from 200 victims/persons

Investigating Officer had not been able to produce any concrete evidence in support of those claims during the course of the investigation

No statements from the witnesses or aggrieved parties, who allegedly transferred money into the petitioner's bank account, were available on the record to substantiate the allegations against him

Though the FIR contained serious allegations of large scale financial fraud involving billions of rupees, the record reflected that at the time of the petitioner's arrest, only the following amounts were recovered from his possession, 2900 USD, 66000 Kenyan currency, 18600 PKR and 480 AED

Said recovered sums were nominal, when viewed in the context of the scale of fraud alleged

Furthermore, during the petitioner's physical remand, the Investigating Officer placed on record subsequent developments that did not appear to substantially strengthen the prosecution's stance

Such glaring discrepancy between the allegations in the FIR and the evidence so far collected raised serious doubts regarding the veracity and strength of the prosecution's case against the petitioner

Section 13 of ("PECA") pertained to electronic forgery, which involved entering into an express or implied contract through an information system with intent to commit fraud by input, alteration, deletion, or suppression of data

Punishment prescribed was up-to three years of imprisonment

Section 14 deals with electronic fraud, targeting inducement into relationships or causing harm or damaged through deception, punishable by up to two years

Section 16 addressed unauthorized use of Identity Information, criminalizing the use of another person's identity without authorization, carrying a punishment of up to three years

Bare perusal of these provisions indicated that they were not intended to address financial crimes or fraudulent forex trading, which formed the crux of the prosecution's case

Thus, the petitioner's case clearly fell within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

As far as the remaining provisions of the P.P.C were concerned, S.406 deals with criminal breach of trust concerning entrustment, not investment

Offence under S.419 related to impersonation, which was not the prosecution case, S.420 deals with cheating, and S.468 with forgery for the purpose of cheating

Section 471 addresses the use of forged documents as genuine

Section 109 pertains to abetment and S.34 to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Most of the Sections mentioned in the FIR were bailable, and though some were non-bailable, but none fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Applicability of the said Sections and particularly the role of the present petitioner in the alleged offences, would ultimately be determined during the course of the trial

In the present case, the petitioner had no prior criminal record and had remained incarcerated since the date of his arrest

Investigation had since been completed and the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation

Continued detention of petitioner, therefore, served no meaningful prosecutorial purpose

Denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to inflicting punishment prior to conviction, which the law did not permit

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Record (including statement(s) of law /Police officer) revealed that the sample taken out from alleged recovery (heroin) was sent for chemical analysis, but the same had not been found as heroin as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore

Therefore, the case of prosecution against the petitioner required further probe/inquiry within the purview of subsection 2 of S.497 Cr.P.C. and it had become a case for grant of post arrest bail

Bail was granted to petitioner / accused, in circumstances.

Accused, Executive Director (Business Development) at a mill, was accused of engaging fictitious agents to unlawfully receive commissions in their names and misappropriated amount, allegedly, constituting criminal breach of trust

Essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined under S.405 P.P.C, were prima facie missing in the present matter

There was an accusation of misappropriation of USD 748,850 by the petitioner being Executive Director (Business Development) under the pretext of commission payments through fictitious agents

Section 408 P.P.C specifically deals with criminal breach of trust committed by a clerk or servant, requiring that the accused, in such a capacity, be entrusted with property or exercise dominion over it, and subsequently misappropriated the same

For the offence to be established, both elements i.e. entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must co-exist

The word "entrustment" implies the handing over of property for a specific purpose without transferring ownership, whereas "dominion" denotes control or authority over the said property

However, in the instant case, there was neither a specific allegation nor any material on record to suggest that the complainant entrusted any property to the petitioner in his capacity as a clerk or servant, which the petitioner had misappropriated

In absence of said foundational requirement of entrustment, the applicability of S.408 P.P.C becomes prima facie doubtful at bail stage

During the course of investigation, the statements of three employees of mill (Manager Taxation, Office Manager and Executive Manager) were recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.; said individuals alleged that payments were made to persons other than the legitimate customers of the company and attributed responsibility for the same to the petitioner, however, they did not furnish any account details, payment trails, or disclose the basis of their knowledge regarding alleged misappropriation

Furthermore, the petitioner held the position of Executive Director of Business Development, which, on the face of it, did not appear to be connected with the financial affairs of the complainant's company

One person was claimed to be an agent of the complainant's company who had deposited Rs.5,600,000/- in the bank accounts of the petitioner and his wife, allegedly, in lieu of commission, however, no statement of the said agent was recorded by the investigating officer to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged misappropriation

There, admittedly, was nothing on the record specifically, from the deposit slips indicating that these deposits were made in the bank account as commission to the petitioner

Moreover, only photocopies of the deposit slips were provided by the Legal Manager of the complainant, which were taken into possession via recovery memo by the Investigating Officer (IO); said photocopies were neither verified from the concerned bank nor any bank official's statement was recorded to confirm their authenticity

No supporting material was collected by the IO to show that the petitioner received any commission through fictitious agents

However, the veracity of the photocopies of these deposit slips would be determined by the Trial court after recording of evidence

Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner and the complainant were real cousins while the petitioner's father was a shareholder in the company / mill where the alleged misappropriation was said to have occurred; in such circumstances, the dispute between the parties, prima facie, appeared to stem out of internal financial disagreements within the family

The prosecution's case against the petitioner primarily hinged on allegations regarding payments to purported parties and receiving commissions from the agents, the details of which were already available in the company's records and with the investigating agency

No material evidence or documents remained to be recovered, and there appeared to be no necessity for custodial interrogation

Accordingly, there was no risk of the petitioner tampering with evidence

Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and may be granted where the petitioner can show that the accusation had been made with mala fide intent, ulterior motives, or to cause humiliation and disgrace, and where irreparable harm may result from arrest

Petitioner had successfully made a prima facie case of mala fide on the part of the complainant

Considering the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of pre-arrest bail would not serve the ends of justice and would run contrary to the intent and spirit of the law

Even otherwise, the case against the petitioner fell within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated under the law

Pre-arrest bail may be granted not only on the basis of mala fide or ulterior motive but also where the accusation necessitated further investigation

The guilt of the petitioner would be determined by the Trial court after recording of evidence

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed

Pre-arrest bail petition was allowed.

Allegation against the petitioner/accused was that he inflicted pistol butt blow on mouth of complainant due to which his lip was fractured and one tooth was broken

There was a delay of about six days in reporting the matter to the police without there being any satisfactory explanation

According to contents of FIR, the petitioner inflicted pistol butt blow on mouth of complainant due to which his lip was fractured and one tooth was broken, however, the injuries allegedly attributed to the petitioner had been declared under Ss.337-L(2) & 337-A(i), P.P.C, which were bailable and S.337-U, P.P.C, which carried the punishment of arsh i.e. one-twentieth of the diyat

Whether or not S.337-U, P.P.C would be read with S.334, P.P.C, would be answered by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Petitioner was not involved in any other case of such like nature

Petitioner was behind bars since his arrest and no more required for the purpose of investigation

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period

Thus, case of the petitioner called for further inquiry within the ambit of Subsection (2) of S.497, Code of Criminal Procedure

Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy a building, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury below the right chest of deceased

During the course of investigation, the petitioner claimed a specific plea that he only tried to rescue the children and had not participated in the occurrence

Said version of the petitioner was also verified by the Investigating Officer in its findings incorporated in daily case diary, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not participate in the crime, therefore, the petitioner's case became one requiring further inquiry into his alleged guilt

Furthermore, considering the outcome of the investigations, the petitioner's case presented two conflicting versions; one stated by the complainant in the FIR and the other revealed by the Investigating Officer

Which version was correct was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence

Apart from the above, the crime empties which were secured from the crime scene were found shot from one crime weapon which did not belong to the petitioner

Principal perpetrator of the crime committed suicide at the crime scene

Nothing was recovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner

Investigation had been completed and the petitioner was no more required for the purpose of any further investigation

Petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025 and had been in custody since, without significant progress in the trial

In such state of affairs, the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt

Petitioner was behind the bars and was no more required for further investigation

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the allegation of having issued a cheque valuing Rs.21,00,000/- in favour of complainant to discharge his financial obligation, which upon presentation before the bank was dishonored due to insufficient funds

The offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., entails maximum punishment up to three (03) years and does not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Regarding the offences which do not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail is a rule, whereas, refusal is an exception

Petitioner is behind the bars since 28.04.2025 and he cannot be kept confined for an unlimited period

Thus, the case of petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling him to the concession of post arrest bail

Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Allegations against accused were that, he uploaded fake returns and invoices regarding sales tax and the tax sought to be evaded by such fraud was estimated at Rs. 36 million

In this case, the tax fraud alleged in the FIR was not committed by persons registered under the Sales Tax Act or who were part of the supply chain, rather it was alleged to commit by persons who were not registered under the Sales Tax Act but were involved in theft of sales tax profiles for creating fake and flying sales tax invoices for onward sale to registered persons

Therefore, the allegation against the applicant was that he was provided a PSID (Payment Slip ID generated by FBR's WeBOC System) for Rs. 100/, which was the challan for submitting revised sales tax returns and on 30-09-2024 the applicant paid the same using his Easypaisa account

It was not alleged that applicant was one who misappropriated the computer ID and password of the steel mill, or the one who generated the PSID, nor was it alleged that he uploaded the fake sales tax invoices/returns onto the system

After investigation, the co-accused was also released from custody and it was then also acknowledged in the interim challan that the person who had sent the PSID to the applicant was still under investigation

Therefore, it had yet to be ascertained whether payment made by the applicant as was with knowledge that it was intended for committing sales tax fraud

In such circumstances, it was difficult to say that offences then punishable under clauses 11 and 22 of S. 33 of the Sales Tax Act would be attracted to applicant

As regards the offence punishable under clause 13(b) of S. 33 of the Sales Tax Act viz. abetment in tax fraud, even if that was made out, the tax implication was less than one billion rupees

Maximum imprisonment provided for that was five years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Thus, bail became the rule and its refusal, an exception

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Charge sheet against the applicants had been submitted, hence, their custody was no more required by the police for further investigation

Accused-petitioners were confined in judicial custody since the day of their arrest

Accused-petitioners had no previous record of involvement in any crime

Despite prior information, police failed to associate any private person to witness the alleged recovery of methamphetamine, as such, the guilt of the applicants fell within the ambit of further inquiry

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace abettor present at the time of occurrence, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party and caused injuries to two persons

Case involved a solitary firearm injury allegedly inflicted by the applicant on the injured, which struck his right thigh

Whether that injury was of a fatal nature remained undetermined at this stage

Despite the injured being at the mercy of the applicant and other armed co-accused, there was no allegation that the applicant repeated the firing

Consequently, the essential ingredients of the offence under S.324, P.P.C., appeared, prima facie, to be lacking

Thus, the case against the present applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C

Further it came on record that the applicant had instituted constitutional petition, which was allowed by order dated 23.09.2022

In that order, the Bench directed that a thorough probe be conducted regarding the multiple FIRs registered against the applicant and further ordered that no fresh FIR shall be lodged against him without prior permission of the concerned Judicial Magistrate

Pursuant to the said directions, an inquiry was carried out, which revealed that several false FIRs had indeed been registered against the applicant

In view of these circumstances, coupled with the admitted political rivalry evident from the contents of the FIR, the possibility of the applicant's false implication in the present case, though ultimately to be adjudicated at the stage of trial, could not be ruled out at this stage of bail proceedings

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the applicant/ accused was that he committed dacoity of Rs. 70,000 and theft of mobile phones from the friends of the complainant on gun point

Record revealed that the accused/applicant had been in police custody in a different FIR, when the two witnesses/victims, while visiting that Police Station (a totally different Police Station from the one where the FIR of present occurrence was registered) identified the accused on 04.08.2024 and nominated him for the first time as per the S.161, Cr.P.C statements

Record showed that the accused/applicant was identified by a different victim in the identification parade from the two persons (complainant and another victim) who identified the same accused/applicant in police custody at the police station, a few days earlier

When the identification parade was conducted after the complainant nominated the petitioner, then, in these circumstances, the sanctity of the test identification parade, prima facie, opened the door to further inquiry

Police papers showed that the counsel for the complainant/eye-witnesses/victims was also present at the time of the identification parade and recorded his objections, when the protocol in such cases was that he should not have been present; it appeared that the protocol was not followed

Bottom line was that, the mode and manner of the identification parade did not inspire confidence, particularly when the FIR was lodged against unknown accused, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, triggered a need for further inquiry and merited consideration as one of the points for the concession of bail to the accused/applicant

Alleged incident took place on 27.07.2024, but it took the complainant/eye-witness/victim, who also alleged that the crime involved five accused, seven (7) days before one of the five victims of the crime registered FIR, on 03.08.2024

No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the FIR

Out of the five eye-witnesses, only one stepped forward as the complainant to lodge the criminal complaint

Furthermore, as per the timing of filing the FIR, the said FIR was registered at Police Station, "KAN", on 03.08.2024, when the accused/applicant was already in police custody in another Police Station in connection with another FIR at the time

Thereafter, on the very next day, two of the five witnesses also proceeded to other Police Station to identify the accused, not at Police Station "KAN" but at other Police Station, where the accused/applicant was being held in police custody

All these events, including the timeline of how the accused was identified and the delay in filing the FIR required further inquiry

Nothing had been recovered from the applicant/accused

Yet, the prosecution had submitted in the lower forum, and once again before this Court, that the accused/applicant was involved in crimes of a similar nature and was charged in several FIRs

Prosecution's submission was not persuasive

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Itlaf-i-udw, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegation against the accused-applicant was that he while operating a chingchi rickshaw had an accident with motorcycle being operated by a motorcyclist, who got injured in the said accident

As per record, it was not the case of prosecution that the accused-applicant had any motive to hit injured or that he hit him intentionally

First Information Report described the event which caused injury to the accused as "an accident"

Thus, although the injury attributed to the applicant/accused had resulted in the amputation of part of the leg of the injured (below the knee), resulting in the challan under the non-bailable S.334, P.P.C., yet the FIR in the first instance, mentioned only the bailable offence under S.337-G

Thus, while the remaining Sections introduced in the challan were all bailable, S.334, P.P.C raised further questions as to whether the applicant/accused was driving recklessly, negligently or with the intention to cause hurt, which issue too became a matter of evidence and this stage of proceedings, one that required further inquiry

Prosecution had claimed that the applicant/accused did not have a valid permit to operate a chingchi loader rickshaw, however, the lack of a permit might have constituted a breach of some other law, but it was not material in the facts and circumstances of this case to reject bail to the applicant/accused

In the present scenario, a tentative assessment of the evidence showed that the applicant/accused was a permanent resident of Pakistan having a valid Afghan Citizen Card ("ACC")

Parents of the accused/applicant, both father and mother and his three siblings/brothers all had an ACC

Resident/accused and his immediate family were continuing to reside in Pakistan, legally

Family was earning their wage(s) and daily bread and butter in Pakistan and were economically entrenched in Pakistan

Therefore, the applicant/accused might not be an imminent flight risk, as apprehended by the prosecution

Case of the applicant accused called for further inquiry

Punishment for the offences alleged also did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C

Thus, the grant of bail was the rule and its refusal was an exception

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-applicants were that they entered into the house of complainant and committed murder of her son by firing

Perusal of the record revealed that although the applicants were nominated in the FIR, the fact remained that no specific role of firing upon the deceased had been attributed to them

According to the prosecution's own case, it was co-accused who allegedly fired the shot that caused the death of the deceased, whereas the applicants were only assigned the role of providing cover to the main accused

Mere presence of an accused at the scene of occurrence was not sufficient to hold him responsible for the commission of the offence unless the prosecution succeeded in establishing that he shared a common intention or common object with his co-accused, or that he otherwise facilitated the commission of the crime

Since the applicants were allegedly empty-handed at the time of occurrence, they could not have rendered any effective assistance to the principal accused

On the contrary, applicants might have exposed themselves to potential harm had there been any retaliation or counter-attack from the other side

Where no overt act was ascribed to an accused, a lenient view should be taken in the matter of bail

Allegations against the present applicants were limited to the assertion that, at the time of the incident, they provided cover to the principal accused during the commission of the offence

Moreover, it had been alleged that a dispute had arisen over a monetary transaction between co-accused and the deceased

Present applicants were the brothers of the said co-accused

Tentative and prima facie assessment of the material available on record indicated the involvement of the applicants/accused in the alleged offence; however, the precise extent of their participation could only be determined after the recording of evidence from both sides

Until such determination, the case of the present applicants/accused squarely fell within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, causing hurt by a rash or negligent act

Bail, confirmation/grant of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person lost his life during the occurrence, whereas two persons sustained injuries

Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person lost his life during the occurrence, whereas two persons sustained injuries

Admittedly, the main role of causing firearm injury to deceased had been attributed to co-accused, who was absconding

Whereas co-accused had also caused rifle shot to injured witness, he had not been arrested by the police so far

As far role of present applicants was concerned, all of them had allegedly made straight fires upon the complainant party aimed to commit their qatl-i-amd, however, none of the fires was provided to be effective

As far as role of accused "HB" was concerned, he allegedly caused weapon butt blow to injured witness on his head, but said injyry had been declared as shajjah-i-khafifah punishable Under S.337-A(i), P.P.C and was bailable

Co-accused having similar role had already been bailed out by the Trial Court, therefore, case of applicants was at par with them; hence, they deserved to be extended constant treatment

Since, the applicants had not been attributed any overt act or injury to deceased; hence, case against them in view of peculiar circumstances of the case required further enquiry within meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

Opinion of police was not binding upon the Courts; hence, the subsequent investigation conducted by the DSP upon directions of the DIGP at belated stage of trial might have not vitiated the evidentiary value of the prosecution case, which had already been submitted before the Trial Court, where cognizance had also been taken against all the accused

Hence, in view of the earlier investigation, sufficient evidence as well as material was collected which was to be adduced by the prosecution at the time of trial and it was up to the Trial Court to decided whether the second investigation so conducted was according to law or otherwise

Applicants, thus, made out their good prima facie case for grant of bail

Bail applications were allowed, in circumstances

Interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant was confirmed whereas two accused were allowed post arrest bail.

Qatl-i-amd, criminal conspiracy, abetment, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant with sharp edged weapons

Petitioner "DR" was alleged to have been present at the scene of the crime while armed with a pistol

However, it was an admitted fact, supported by the post-mortem report, that the deceased suffered no firearm injuries

Cause of death was incised wounds from a sharp weapon

Role attributed to "DR" was therefore distinguishable from that of the principal accused who were alleged to have inflicted the fatal blows

While presence of "DR" at the scene was a serious matter, the fact that he did not use his weapon and played no part in the fatal assault made his case one of further inquiry to determine the extent of his liability and the existence of a common intention

Prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. was not an absolute bar to the grant of bail, especially when the case of an accused person required further inquiry

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, criminal conspiracy, abetment, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention

Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Further inquiry

Abetment and conspiracy

Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant with sharp edged weapons

Record showed that allegation against the petitioner "MM" was solely that of instigation

In a case where the accusation under S.107, P.P.C hinged on alleged instigation proven through digital evidence on a USB device, failure to forensically examine the USB critically undermined the prosecution's evidence

Without authentic, verified evidence, claim of instigation become tenuous, especially when there was no direct or corroborative evidence beyond the unverified USB

Legal safeguards protected the accused's right to challenge unsubstantiated digital claims

For bail Courts usually adopt a lenient view when evidence was procedurally defective or weak

First Information Report itself was based on a prior altercation between the applicant and the deceased

While instigation was a serious allegation, its proof often required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which could only be undertaken at the trial stage

There was no evidence on record to show that the applicant was present at the scene of the crime or participated in the physical act

Question of whether alleged words or actions of petitioner directly led to the commission of the murder was a matter that necessitated further inquiry

General allegation of instigation, without more, often brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry

Bail application was allowed and pre-arrest bail granted earlier was confirmed, in circumstances.

FIR was lodged with a delay of approximately two days, for which no plausible explanation had been furnished by the complainant, despite the fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station was merely two kilometers

Although a specific allegation was attributed to the accused, assigning him the direct role of causing firearm injury to the deceased, accused raised a plea of alibi which, upon investigation, was found to be substantiated

Investigating Officer collected the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the accused's mobile phone, which established his presence at a location distant from the scene of the incident

Investigating Officer collected an audio recording of a telephonic conversation between accused, co-accused, and the deceased

On the basis of said telephonic conversation, it stood established that the accused were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time

Relying upon this evidence, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicants and placed their names in column No. 2 of the police report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C.

In the present matter, the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient material substantiating the defence version of the accused persons and, on the basis of the said reports, had placed their names in column No. 2 of the challan

Consequently, the case of the applicants/accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

Applicants/accused had been in custody for approximately one year and no substantial progress had been made in the proceedings before the Trial Court

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accusations against arrested applicants "FK" and "FH" were that they issued Banker's cheques without formal customer request; funds of that banker cheque were used for issuance of TDR and they processed the TDR issuance request with single signature of the authorized signatory instead of joint signatures as per instruction of account opening documents, and processed premature encashment without collecting/receiving original TDR certificate from the customer

Record showed that TDR certificate was signed by applicants "HA" and "FK" and the latter posted entry in system

Applicant "FK" also signed on various dates on the back of the cheques

However, as per S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Investigation Executive (Audit and Inspection Group) National Bank of Pakistan, his computer system/e-mail login credentials were used by "HA"

Hence, the guilt of applicant "FK" required further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

As per S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Investigation Executive (Audit and Inspection Group) National Bank of Pakistan, applicant "FH" acted as per the instructions of "HA"

Mother of applicant "FH" was admitted in hospital in March 2024 and taking advantage of that situation, "HA" obtained his system ID and password to process clearing entries

Hence, the guilt of applicant "FH" also required further inquiry

Bail applications of applicants "FK" and "FH"were allowed, in circumstances.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accusations against arrested applicants "FK" and "FH" were that they issued Banker's cheques without formal customer request; funds of that banker cheque were used for issuance of TDR and they processed the TDR issuance request with single signature of the authorized signatory instead of joint signatures as per instruction of account opening documents, and processed premature encashment without collecting/receiving original TDR certificate from the customer

Record showed that TDR certificate was signed by applicants "HA" and "FK" and the latter posted entry in system

Applicant "FK" also signed on various dates on the back of the cheques

However, as per S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Investigation Executive (Audit and Inspection Group) National Bank of Pakistan, his computer system/e-mail login credentials were used by "HA"

Hence, the guilt of applicant "FK" required further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

As per S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Investigation Executive (Audit and Inspection Group) National Bank of Pakistan, applicant "FH" acted as per the instructions of "HA"

Mother of applicant "FH" was admitted in hospital in March 2024 and taking advantage of that situation, "HA" obtained his system ID and password to process clearing entries

Hence, the guilt of applicant "FH" also required further inquiry

Bail applications of applicants "FK" and "FH"were allowed, in circumstances.

Per prosecution case, the applicant had purchased stolen property i.e. leads/ wires of T/motors Nos.4, 5, 6, cut off from traction motor channel from co-accused, which belonged to Pakistan Railways

Since such act on the part of the co-accused endangered and humen, therefore, after thorough investigation, the police reached the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence in terms of S.126 of the Pakistan Railways Act, 1890

Evidence collected during investigation revealed that the applicant had not removed or stolen the property in question nor was the member of such gang who actually had committed the offence

Mere allegation against the applicant was that he allegedly purchased said stolen property from co-accused and after recording evidence, if prosecution was successful to prove its case, it would fall within compass of S.411, P.P.C

Bare perusal of said Section of law showed that before securing involvement against the applicant, the prosecution was required to prove that the applicant was not only found in possession of the stolen property belonging to Pakistan Railways but he did so with particular intent or knowledge that he would endanger the safety of the persons traveling by train on particular track

In other words in addition to the actual removal or theft of certain property, the prosecution had to prove the requisite intent or knowledge on the part of the applicant that he was likely to endanger the safety of any person or persons travelling by train on particular track

Mere purchase of said property from co-accused would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the applicant in terms of the provision contained under Pakistan Railways Act, 1890 unless the prosecution further proved it by way of evidence

As per available direct or circumstantial material, no evidence had been brought on record that the applicant did so with intent or knowledge that he was likely to endanger the safety of the persons travelling by the particular train

Prosecution witnesses in their respective statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., had not, in any way connected the applicant with actual removal/theft of the property

In other words, it was an admitted fact that there was no material available on the record to establish that the applicant had either been actually seen by any one removing the said property or seen in suspicious circumstances near the place of occurrence carrying such stolen property immediately after the occurrence

Applicant was not nominated in FIR as an accused, however, he was implicated in this case on disclosure made by the co-accused, during investigation

Upon recovery of alleged stolen property from his shop applicant was arrayed as an accused

Under the circumstances, mere recovery of stolen articles from the applicant and in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, it could safely be held that the offence committed by the applicant fell under S.411, P.P.C. and not under S.126 of Pakistan Railways Act

Only presumption which, therefore, could be raised against the applicant was that he was found in possession of stolen articles which he must have received knowing them to be stolen or otherwise and same was yet to be proved by the prosecution whether the applicant had received or purchased the same knowingly or in good faith

Applicant was not participant of co-accused while committing the offence of theft, however, was found in possession of certain stolen goods and such accusation against him was yet to be established by the prosecution by recording evidence of its witnesses and then the Trial Court had to determine the same against him whether he would be tried for both Sections of law or only for the offence of receiving stolen property

Under the circumstances, the applicant had successfully made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Admitted position was that the applicants were in judicial custody since the date of their arrest i.e. 26.07.2024, for the last about sixteen months

Federal Investigation Agency had submitted the charge-sheet against them; however, their trial was not commencing for want of quorum of the Trial Court, which should consist of two members and one Chairman

Accused had a right to a speedy trial and he could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period without trial

Right to a speedy trial protected individuals from being held in jail for extended periods, sometimes for years, without trial

Admitted position was that despite prior information, FIA police failed to associate any private person to witness the recovery of alleged fake/un-registered/spurious drugs, details whereof had not been mentioned in the FIR with names of the drugs and quantities; as such, the guilt of the applicants fell within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C

Alleged offences as defined under Ss.23(1)(a)(i), (vii) (x), 23 (1) (b) & 23 (1) (i) of the Act were punishable under S.27 (ibid) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years or more than ten years

However, at the stage of bail, the lesser of two punishments was to be taken into consideration, as the quantum of punishment could only be decided by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019 (III of 2020), S.8-A(i)

Possession of Gutka

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Record reflected that the alleged recovery was effected from within a populated area, yet no private person was associated as a witness to the arrest and recovery proceedings and all the witnesses were Police Officials

Thus, there appeared to be much less apprehension of tampering with the evidence by the accused persons

Challan had been submitted before the Court having jurisdiction and the investigation of the case was complete, including the submission of the Government Laboratory chemical report

Therefore, custody of the applicants/accused persons was not required for any further investigation or recovery

Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C

In such cases, the grant of bail was a rule, whereas refusal was an exception

At this stage, a deeper appreciation of the evidence was not permissible while deciding the bail application and the same was to be decided tentatively based on the material available on record

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegedly, the petitioner had been nominated in the FIR and recovery of 1530 grams of contraband substance, viz. charas, was shown to have been effected from his possession

However, the punishment provided by law for the said offence is imprisonment which may be extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than nine years

When the statue provided two punishments, then lesser one was to be considered at bail stage

Hence, the alleged offence with which the petitioner was charged did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C., thus making bail the rule and jail the exception

Furthermore, the non-association of private mashirs in such circumstances undermined the credibility of the prosecution case

Additionally, no video recording or photographic evidence of the recovery proceedings had been placed on record, despite the availability of technology and the statutory expectation of transparency under such circumstances

In cases hinging solely on police testimony, the benefit of doubt must be afforded to the accused, even at the bail stage

In the circumstances and in view of legal as well as factual position of record the petitioner had succeeded to make out a good prima facie case for grant of bail

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, theft, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghair jaifah hashimah

Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they while armed with deadly weapons attacked upon the complainant at a cattle pond, inflicted lathi blows to the complainant on his arm and committed theft of complainant's gold chain and a mobile phone

Admittedly, the incident was said to have occurred on 08.12.2024, whereas FIR was lodged on 28.12.2024 i.e. with delay of 10 days and no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay

Delay in criminal cases is fatal for the prosecution

Except one accused, no role had been assigned to any of the applicants

However, the injury allegedly attributed to said accused was on non-vital part of his body and had been declared by the Medico-Legal Officer falling under S.337-F(v), P.P.C, carrying punishment of 05 years only

As far as application of S.459, P.P.C, was concerned, the applicants as well as complainant/injured were close relatives inter se, hence, involvement of accused in the odd hours of the night in the house of complainant in view of their close relationship required evidence and it was yet to be proved by the prosecution whether the applicants allegedly had entered into the house of complainant by night in order to commit theft and whilst committing the offence had caused injury to the injured complainant

This was a question which was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses

Hence, the mandatory requirement of S.459, P.P.C, for joint punishment was yet to be proved by the prosecution after recording its evidence

Case had been challaned and no complaint with regard to misuse of concession of interim pre-arrest bail extended to the applicants earlier had been brought on record

In the circumstances and in view of factual position with regard to the enmity between the parties, basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were fully attracted in that case

Hence, case against the applicants was covered by sub S.(2) to S. 497, Cr.P.C. and required further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was allowed and interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants was confirmed, in circumstances.

Allegations against accused were that, he uploaded fake returns and invoices regarding sales tax and the tax sought to be evaded by such fraud was estimated at R.36 million

In this case, the tax fraud alleged in the FIR was not committed by persons registered under the Sales Tax Act or who were part of the supply chain, rather it was alleged to commit by persons who were not registered under the Sales Tax Act but were involved in theft of sales tax profiles for creating fake and flying sales tax invoices for onward sale to registered persons

Therefore, the allegation against the applicant was that he was provided a PSID (Payment Slip ID generated by FBR's WeBOC System) for Rs. 100/, which was the challan for submitting revised sales tax returns and on 30-09-2024 the applicant paid the same using his Easypaisa account

It was not alleged that applicant was one who misappropriated the computer ID and password of the steel mill, or the one who generated the PSID, nor was it alleged that he uploaded the fake sales tax invoices/returns onto the system

After investigation, the co-accused was also released from custody and it was then also acknowledged in the interim challan that the person who had sent the PSID to the applicant was still under investigation

Therefore, it had yet to be ascertained whether payment made by the applicant was with knowledge that it was intended for committing sales tax fraud

In such circumstances, it was difficult to say that offences then punishable under clauses 11 and 22 of S.33 of the Sales Tax Act would be attracted to applicant

As regards the offence punishable under clause 13(b) of S.33 of the Sales Tax Act viz. abetment in tax fraud, even if that was made out, the tax implication was less than one billion rupees

Maximum imprisonment provided for that was five years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Thus, bail became the rule and its refusal, an exception

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, buying or disposing of any person as a slave, unlawful compulsory labour, cruelty to child, criminal intimidation, wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent, ta'zir after waiver or compounding of the right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, rape, unnatural offence, common intention, prohibition of employment of child

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the accused-applicants were that they physically abused and maltreated the minor daughter of complainant

First Information Report was lodged after a delay of two days from the date of the alleged occurrence, without satisfactory explanation on record

Such delay tarnished the authenticity of the FIR and provided room for deliberation, consultation, and potential fabrication of facts, thereby shaking the foundational credibility of the prosecution's version

Post-mortem report, an objective, scientific piece of evidence, recorded the cause of death as "cardiac arrest secondary to trauma" and categorically ruled out any evidence of sexual assault

Such finding substantially undermined the applicability of Ss. 376(3) & 377, P.P.C, and raised a serious question whether the nature of trauma was homicidal, accidental, or otherwise

When medical evidence did not fully support the gravest charge, the matter fell within the domain of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Several material prosecution witnesses, had been examined before the Trial Court and had categorically resiled from the prosecution's story, instead stating that the deceased died a natural death and exonerated the applicants

Said complete departure from the initial version gravely undermined the substratum of the prosecution case and, even at a tentative stage, created reasonable doubt

Benefit of doubt, however slight, must be extended to the accused even at the bail stage

Prosecution case rested purely on circumstantial evidence, there being no direct eye-witness account of the alleged homicidal act

Supplementary statement implicating applicant prima facie appeared to be an afterthought

Where the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete or doubtful, the accused should not be deprived of liberty pending trial

Complainant and her husband, being legal heirs of the deceased, had filed No-Objection Affidavits expressing no objection to the grant of bail to the applicants

Applicants had remained behind bars for a considerable period, yet the trial had not concluded

Right to a speedy trial was enshrined in Art.10-A of the Constitution

Arts. 9 and 10-A of the Constitution guaranteed the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

In the face of material contradictions, medical evidence negating the gravest charge, and a hostile prosecution case, continued detention would be punitive in nature, which was impermissible at the pre-conviction stage

In such circumstances, and even on a tentative appraisal, the case against the applicants was fraught with serious doubts and squarely attracted the principle of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C

Bail applications were allowed, accordingly.

Causing shajjah, ghayr-jaifah, defamation, criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from discharging their duty, wrongful confinement, affray, joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, voluntarily obstructing a public servant from discharging their public functions, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the accused/petitioner were that he and other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked government officials who were deputed for conducting the bidding process of dead fallen trees

From perusal of record it revealed that total 36 persons were nominated in the FIR

Out of 36 persons/accused some co-accused of the present petitioners had been discharged by the prosecution under S.169 Cr.P.C and some co-accused had been released on bail, particularly two co-accused persons had been attributed similar role in the FIR who had been released on bail

Hence, rule of consistency applied to the case of present petitioners/accused

There was also six hours delay in lodging of FIR which created doubt regarding involvement of the petitioners/accused in the instant case

Moreover, all offences reelected in the FIR were bailable except offence under S.506(ii), P.P.C, which too did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, thus grant of bail in such like offence was rule and refusal was an exception

Furthermore the investigation of the case had been completed and the petitioners/accused were no more required for further investigation

Petitioners/accused were students and their detention in prison for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose, rather their studies would be suffered

Bail petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they caused severe injuries to the complainant and his father over a parking issue

From perusal of record it transpired that the petitioner No.1/accused and two others were directly nominated in the FIR and the allegations levelled therein indeed disclosed commission of the offences under Ss.147, 148, 341, 337-A & 506(ii), P.P.C

Alleged occurrence had been committed at a road which was a populated area and was a hub of selling auto-parts of various vehicles by various people of almost all the districts as well as citizens of different provinces and various kinds of workshops of vehicles were situated in the area

Despite that, the complainant had failed to produce a single private witness regarding the occurrence which showed that the complainant had malafidely lodged the instant FIR just to harass the petitioners/accused in the hands of police

Moreover, as per contents of FIR, the petitioners/accused had beaten complainant and his father as such the complainant and his father got severe injuries on head and vital parts of body, whereas, the prosecution had failed to submit Medico-Legal Report despite lapse of two months

Moreover, the principal accused, who was directly nominated in the FIR, had already been released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate and acquitted him from the charges levelled in the FIR due to compromise between the parties, hence, the petitioners/accused were also entitled for concession of bail

Grant of pre-arrest bail was not to be withheld as a punishment, rather it was meant to protect innocent persons from humiliation and undue harassment at the hands of the police or complainant when a case of mala-fides or ulterior motive was made out

Admittedly, Ss. 147, 341 and 337-A, P.P.C, were bailable, whereas, Ss. 148 and 506(ii), P.P.C, were non-bailable, the punishment provided therein did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Allegations of mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as the police could not be ruled out at this stage

Bail application was allowed and interim bail already granted to the applicants was confirmed, in circumstances.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for valuable security, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal breach of trust by public servant, public servant accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration, offence of forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Rule of consistency

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he through forged document and with the connivance of Naib Tehsildar sold out land measuring 1410 kanals including common village lands and public grazing land fraudulently

Admittedly, the accused/petitioner was not a Government servant hence S.409, P.P.C, and S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not applicable to the extent of the petitioner in the present case

Co-accused, who were arrested by the police in the instant case, had already been granted post arrest bail by the Chief Court and another nominated accused, the then Naib Tehsildar was on interim bail, as such the present petitioner became entitled for concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency

Moreover, there was unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR and the documentary evidence available on the prosecution file suggested the matter being of private transaction

Piece of land regarding which the transaction was alleged was not Government land as per revenue record, rather the same was recorded as Jagir of Raja's of the area in the revenue documents

Investigation in the matter to the extent of the present petitioner was completed and the petitioner was behind bars without any trial in the case

Nothing was available on case file to prove the entrustment of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust, hence, the application of S.409, P.P.C., in the instant matter required further inquiry to the extent of present petitioner

Other sections did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was local habitant of the area and the prosecution had not taken the plea of abscondance or tampering with the evidence by the accused, as such in absence of any allegation of abscondance or tempering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail was not to be withheld as punishment, because the accused/ petitioner would face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the Trial Court at the time of conclusion of the trial

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-applicants was that 04-kilograms and 900-grams charas was recovered from their joint possession

From perusal of record it transpired that the contraband charas was recovered from a bag which was brought before the police from a truck by both the petitioners/accused and driver of said truck was also present at the time of recovery of contraband charas

Said charas was not recovered from the actual possession of the petitioners as bag containing the charas was lying in the truck

However, it was yet to be ascertained as to whether the petitioners/accused were actually in possession of the charas, hence case against the petitioners/accused was one of further inquiry

Moreover, sample of recovered charas had been sent to the Chemical Examiner after delay of more than seven days

Concerned SHO was present before the Court and he had failed to account for delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner

Besides, the record was also silent as to why the sample was sent with such delay to Chemical Examiner

Almost all the proceedings had been conducted by Foot Constable who was also complainant of the case

Recovery had allegedly been effected in front of Police Station in violation of relevant provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Station House Officer and Addl. Station House Officer were present in the police station but they had not bothered to conduct recovery proceedings and preliminary investigation

Furthermore, police had failed to record or to take photographs at the time of alleged recovery of charas as the law permitted the use of modern devices or techniques

Moreover, the petitioners/accused were not previous convict and they were behind the bars since their arrest and they were no more required for further investigation

Consequently, bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he made firing upon the complainant and his son with the intention to kill them

All offences reflected in the FIR except S.324, P.P.C., were bailable

Admittedly, the allegation pertained to ineffective aerial firing and no one had sustained injuries, as such it would be moot question for the Trial Court to determine whether the allegation of attempt to murder was established in the case or not, which could be done at the time of conclusion of trial, which made the instant case of prosecution as one of further inquiry under S.497(2),Cr.P.C.

Investigation of case was complete and the accused petitioner was behind bar since his arrest

Accused was no more required for further investigation or for any other case to the prosecution

Speedy trial was the right of the accused and was now guaranteed under the Constitution but trial of the case did not witness any progress because complete challan of the case was still awaited

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 1000-grams charas in polythene packing was recovered from the possession of accused-petitioner

Alleged incident had taken place during the day time in a town area and the petitioner/accused had been arrested on the spot but the Investigating Officer of the case as usual did not bother to associate a single private/independent person as witness in the recovery proceedings

Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C, which required two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to be associated when search was made, had been excluded by virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but that waiver could not be made an excuse in each and every case

Where a raid was conducted or an accused was arrested in busy hours of broad day light in a busy market place on the spy information, the non association of independent witnesses would tilt against the prosecution

Police Officials did not make any effort or attempt to use their mobile phone cameras to record or take photographs when the alleged search, seizure and arrest was made by the police specially in such nature of cases

No record was available on the case file regarding deposit of contraband in malkhana; no roznamcha entry existed on the prosecution record about handing over the case property to malkhana incharge

No statement in that connection of malkhana incharge was recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case

No record was also available with the police regarding transmission of alleged recovered contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of obtaining its expert report/opinion

Law Officer of the Statemiserably failed to show any authentic and credible record or document which could indicate that the alleged recovered contraband had been kept in safe legal custody and thereafter, transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory for obtaining its expert opinion by following the required legal mandatory protocols and procedures

Conduct of police showed that the investigation had been carried out in a very casual and stereotype manner without making an effort to discover the actual facts/truths

Such conduct of police would give shelter and definitely would favor the accused even for limited purpose of bail

Prosecution had failed to show that if the polythene packing of charas was separated then what would be the net weight of the alleged recovered charas and that fact also made the instant case one of further inquiry falling within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the petitioner-accused were that he along with his co-accused attempted to commit murder of complainant by opening fires from outside of house of the complainant and one bullet hit the complainant

From perusal of record it transpired that the complainant had nominated the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused on the basis of suspicion claiming that he had old enmity with the co-accused of the present petitioner and the present petitioner and his father were relative of the other accused, therefore, the present petitioner and his co-accused might have opened fire on him

Neither any eye-witness nor the complainant himself witnessed/saw the accused/petitioner and his co-accused at the place of occurrence

No specific role had been attributed to the accused/petitioner in the FIR and no incriminating material/weapon of offence had been recovered from the present petitioner/accused by the police during investigation of the case

Petitioner/accused was confined in judicial custody since the day of his arrest and police had submitted challan against him in the Court of competent jurisdiction, hence, the petitioner was not required for further investigation

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case against the petitioner/accused required further inquiry as contemplated under subsection.(2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Moreover, three other nominated co-accused of the petitioner/accused had been discharged under S.169, Cr.P.C., by the police

One co-accused had been released on bail by High Court, hence, rule of consistency applied to the case of the present petitioner/accused and he was entitled for concession of post arrest bail

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with his co-accused while armed with different weapons launched an attack upon the complainant party and committed murder of two persons

As per record, joint role was assigned to petitioner and co-accused of making fire shots with Kalashnikov, which landed on the bodies of the two deceased persons

No specific injury on the body of any deceased had been assigned to the petitioner

As per police record, no weapon had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the investigation of the case

According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the empties recovered from the spot were found to be fired from one weapon

It was not determinable at this stage that as to whether any fire shot made by the petitioner landed on the body of either of the deceased

Furthermore, the son of the petitioner was admittedly injured during the occurrence and that fact had also been mentioned in the FIR

Though the complainant stated in the FIR that the said injured received injuries on account of firing of the accused party but it was noted that the accused party had also lodged a cross-version and according to the Investigating Officer both the parties had been challaned in the State case, as well as, cross-version case

Said injured was medically examined on the day of occurrence and according to his Medico-Legal Report, there were five entry and exit wounds on his body

There were firearm entry and exit wounds on his chest and there were multiple firearm wounds on his legs

As it was a cross-version case, therefore, it would be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence that as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon and as such the prosecution case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry entitling the petitioner to the grant of post arrest bail

It was Alleged by prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant that there was only a single injured of the cross-version, whereas on the other hand two persons lost their lives in the State case but number of injured or deceased on either side or receiving of minor injuries or grievous/fatal injuries of any party was not relevant at bail stage

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

Said offence was admittedly, of the category which fell within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.)

While considering the grant of bail, for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause, the grant of bail had to be considered favourably as a rule, but 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

Quantum of amount involved in a case registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., could not be treated as an exception to the general rule that in cases falling under the category of non-prohibitory clause, bail shall be considered favourably

Offence under section 489-F of P.P.C. was not a provision which was intended by the legislature to be used for recovery of the alleged amount

Criminal proceedings were meant to determine the guilt and then to sentence an accused

Legislature had set out the framework for recovery of an alleged amount in case of a dishonoured cheque under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Petitioner in this case was, therefore, entitled to be granted bail since the State counsel had not been able to persuade that exceptional circumstances existed in order to justify denying to the petitioner the concession of post arrest bail

Moreover, whether or not the alleged offence was attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case also required further probe

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, and accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Though Medico-Legal Certificate of the victim and DNA Analysis Report of Forensic Science Agency revealed sexual intercourse by the petitioner with the victim but the Medico-Legal Certificate of the victim did not reveal any marks of violence on the body of victim

Thus, it was yet to be determined at the trial as to whether the sexual intercourse was with consent of the victim or it was forcible

According to section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim she along with her father went to the police station but surprisingly neither victim nor her father got registered FIR and same was registered by the mother of the victim who admittedly was not present in the house at the time of the alleged occurrence

In her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement the victim had not explained as to how the petitioner, being her first cousin, forcibly committed zina with her twice when her father was present in the house/sleeping on the roof top and as to how her relative entered in the house while passing through the street

Pleas raised and put to the victim by the petitioner during cross-examination to her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement also made out a case of further inquiry

On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry

Petitioner being in judicial custody was no more required for any further investigation or probe

Despite submission of challan in December 2024, till date the statement of victim and the prosecution witnesses had not been recorded and in that regard no plausible explanation had been offered by the prosecution

Bail could not be withheld as mere punishment

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

Perusal of the contents of the FIR showed that 680-grams heroin was allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner

Record showed that, despite the existence of spy information, no independent witness was present to witness the purported recovery and no video was produced to substantiate the allegation of the narcotic being recovered from the petitioner's possession

In addition to the petitioner's detention, his companion was also apprehended on the same charges

Petitioner's counsel in support of his contention also placed on record the CCTV footage and photographs in this matter

This case warranted judicial scrutiny for the purpose of determining bail due to its distinctive facts and circumstances

Petitioner's consistent allegations of false implication, alleged prior harassment, confiscation of CCTV evidence, absence of independent witnesses and the prompt filing of complaints before Senior Police Officials suggested that the case warranted further investigation

Moreover, the quantity recovered, although substantial, did not reach commercial levels and raid was not conducted in the presence of neutral witnesses or substantiated by any video evidence

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed and petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

Allegation against the petitioner was that he along with co-accused caused fracture on the little finger of the complainant by giving blows with a wheel spanner

Legally speaking, out of the offences with which the petitioner was charged, Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(i) and 337-L(2), P.P.C., were bailable and in such like offences bail was a right, whereas, punishment of the offence under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and in such like offences grant of bail was a rule and refusal thereof an exception

In such view of the matter, if petitioner was denied the extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, he would nonetheless be entitled to post-arrest bail, considering the nature and extent of the punishment prescribed for the offences with which he stood charged

Once the Court concluded that the accused would become entitled to post-arrest bail upon dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application, then requiring him to undergo incarceration would be a mere procedural formality devoid of any meaningful purpose

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was granted pre-arrest bail.

House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the petitioner were that he along with co-accused persons, duly armed with deadly weapons and forming an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object committed trespass into the house of complainant, assaulted his mother with intent to outrage her modesty and inflicted blow on the head of complainant with butt of a pistol

Record showed that through the impugned order the High Court had extended extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail to co-accused persons but had refused the same concession to the petitioner on the sole ground that the role of inflicting blow on the head of the complainant with butt of the pistol had been specifically assigned to him

First Information Report would reveal that role of the co-accused was at par to a great extent with the role of the petitioner; therefore, on the rule of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to be treated at par with his co-accused

Even otherwise, offence under Section 354, P.P.C., was bailable whereas punishments of the offences under Sections 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C., did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.

In such like cases grant of bail was a rule and refusal thereof an exception

Legally speaking, if the relief of pre-arrest bail was refused to the petitioner, he would be entitled to post arrest bail keeping in view punishment of the offences with which he was charged

If accused person had a good case for post arrest bail then merely at the wish of the complainant, the accused could not be sent behind the bars for few days by dismissing his application for pre-arrest bail

Accordingly, petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and he was granted pre-arrest bail.