Bail

  1. Fire arm injury attributed to the accused — Case supported by eye-witnesses and recovery of crime weapon — Prima facie connects the accused with offence — Bail refused. Muhammad Bashir v. The State 1992 SCR 33 (C)
  2. Bail grant of — Two counter challans — Discretion exercised by the Courts below — Would be interfered with only if the order is perverse or is violative of law on the subject. Tahir Sarwar v. Muhammad Qasim and others 1992 SCR 279 (A)
  3. Bail — two counter versions — Further inquiry — Mere two counter versions or challans — Would not justify allowing bail — Every case has to be decided in its peculiar circumstances — When case falls for further inquiry accused may be released on bail. Tahir Sarwar v. Muhammad Qasim and others 1992 SCR 279 (B)
  4. Bail — While deciding bail matters the Courts should always avoid to indulge in deep scrutiny of the material on record. Observation. Tahir Sarwar v. M. Qasim and others 1992 SCR 279 (C)
  5. Cr.P.C. Cancellation of — Challan has already been filed in the Court-Accused cannot now be handed over to Police for custody for completion of investigation. M. Maskeen v. Ayub 1992 SCR 379 (A)
  6. Bail cancellation of — Supreme Court does not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Shariat Court in bail matter unless shown to be perverse or against law. Muhammad Maskeen v. Muhammad Ayub 1992 SCR 379 (B)
  7. Age per se is not a ground for which bail should necessarily be granted. The power to grant bail on ground that accused is under the age of 16 is discretionary which has to be exercised in the context of over all circumstances of that case.  Abdul Majid v. Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar 1993 SCR 108 (A)
  8. S. 17(3) Enforcement of Hudood (against property) Act — Recovery of the stolen articles and revolvers clearly attributed against the accused — Bail not allowed. An authority in a criminal case is relevant only to the facts if the case in which the same is given. Muhammad  v. The State 1993 SCR 122 (A)
  9. At the bail stage only a bird eye view of the material of the prosecution is to be taken; deep evaluation of the evidence is always avoided at the bail stage. Baggo v. The State & others 1993 SCR 65 (B)
  10. At bail stage deep appreciation of the evidence is not proper. Muhammad Ghalib v. The State 1993 SCR 122 (C)S. 17(3) enforcement of Hudood (against property) Act — Recovery of the stolen article and revolvers clearly attributed against the accused-bail not allowed. An authority in a criminal case is relevant only to the facts if the case in which the same is given. Muhammad Ghalib v. The State 1993 SCR 122 (A)
  11. Bail cannot be refused on the mere ground of heinousness but there is no doubt that it is one of the factors which disentitle a person from claiming the concession of bail. Abdul Majid v. Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar 1993 SCR 108 (B)
  12. Mere fact that the FIR does not contain the names of the eye-witnesses or the accused is named as accused person would not detract from the prosecution story so for as accused’s is prima facie, implicity in the commission of offence is concerned. Baggo v. The State others 1993 SCR 65 (A)
  13. Minute appraisal of the evidence at bail stage not desirable- It is settled principle of law that in bail matters the Supreme Court would not interfere with discretion exercised by the Courts below unless the discretion exercised is found perverse or patently violative of law. Qamar Zaman v. The State and others 1993 SCR 277 (A)
  14. Pre-arrest bail-Bail cancelled by the Shariat Court-Accused has not surrendered himself — Held —  Application of the petitioner can be heard only if he surrenders to the police. Muhammad Akram v. The State 1993 SCR 300 (A)
  15. Bail-further inquiry-no overt act attributed to the accused-statement of witness also at variance. Mst. Jamila Begum v. Ghulam Hussain 1994 SCR 62(B)
  16. Cancellation of fire with 7mm rifle attributed to the accused-but rifle was not recovered from Mushtaq Hussain-empties were not sent to the disturbed. Ashfaq H. v.The State 1994 SCR 66 (A)
  17. Catching hold of the deceased-would not justify release of accused on bail-It depends upon the circumstances of each case-no hard and fast rules can be laid down in bail matter. Javid v. The State 1994 SCR 68 (A)
  18. Five injuries on the person of Behram accused and one injury inflicted to Aisha accused as per medical report — principle on which bail was extended by the Shariat Court to the three accused is fully applicable even in this case. Javid v. The State 1994 SCR 68 (C)
  19. No satisfactory explanation furnished by the prosecution as to how the injuries which were described by the Doctor have been caused with sharp weapon-bail granted. Javid v. The State 1994 SCR 68 (B)
  20. Cancellation of bail matter is to be viewed from altogether a different angle than the question of allowing bail to an accused person which has been refused by the Courts below-This Court would not ordinarily interfere in the discretion of the courts below. It would require some special circumstances. Mirza Mir Zaman v. The State 1994 SCR 11 (C)
  21. Co-accused-grant or refusal of bail-Principal of criminal justice-if the offence is not distinguishable the accused are entitled to equal treatment. State v. Muhammad Ayyub Khan 1994 SCR 32 (C)
  22. Co-accused-allegations against both the accused person were identical-it is well settled that all the material which has been collected has to be considered while deciding bail matter. State v. Muhammad Ayyub Khan 1994 SCR 32 (A)
  23. It is not proper at this stage to embark upon the deep scrutiny of statements of eye witnesses- the statements of the eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside while deciding the bail matter. Punnu Khan v. The State 1994 SCR 29 (A)
  24. In bail matters the authority of one case is hardly helpful to another case — Each case has its own peculiar circumstances. Mirza Mir Zaman v. The State 1994 SCR 11 (A)
  25. Supreme Court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court or Shariat Court unless it has been exercised in perverse or capricious manner. State v. Muhammad Ayyub Khan 1994 SCR 32 (D)
  26. The evidence connects the respondent with an offence punishable with death-trial Court rightly disallowed bail to the accused. State v. Muhammad Ayyub Khan 1994 SCR 32(B)
  27. Discretion exercised by the Shariat Court cannot be interfered with-Trial Court can consider the question of granting bail after recording of some prosecution evidence-If new grounds are available. Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 136 (D)
  28. Discretion exercised by Shariat Court cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that orders passed- Suffer from any legal infirmity. Khurshid Ah. v. M. Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 136 (B)
  29. Pre-arrest bail-Grant of pre-arrest bail should not be treated as a routine matter but having regard to the facts of each case. Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 136 (E)
  30. Vicarious liability-Proof of-Vicarious liability can be proved on basis of evidence which has yet to be recorded. Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 136 (C)
  31. Cancellation of — Additional district Criminal Court granted bail — Shariat Court cancelled the bail —  Accused-appellant filed appeal against the judgment of the Shariat Court-Bail refused on the grounds that (i) Accused nominated in F.I.R and the case was supported by medical evidence and recovery (ii) Occurrence took place in the day light and fire arm used, (iii) Challan was submitted before the trial Court but statement of none of the prosecution witnesses was yet recorded (iv) At this stage no reasonable ground exists, a prima facie case made out; (v) Case is covered under prohibitory clause of sub section (I) of S. 497 Cr. P.C. Appeal dismissed. Nadeem Akhtar v. Muhammad Arshad 1994 SCR 211 (A)
  32. Deep scrutiny of evidence at bail stage not permissible — The view taken by the Shariat Court that cumulative effect of the evidence of the witnesses prima facie connects the accused-appellants with the commission of the offence does not call for interference. Arshad Mahmood & an others v. The State and another 1994 SCR 260 (A)
  33. Question that the accused remained in prison for quite some time is not a sufficient ground for releasing the accused on bail — Especially when it was not shown that there were any delaying tactics on the part of the prosecution. Arshad Mahmood v. The State 1994 SCR 260 (B)
  35. S. 497 (1) Bail — Appreciation of — Ordinarily the merits of the case are not gone into by the superior Courts for the purpose of granting or refusing bail — Held: Appreciation of evidence is the exclusive function of the trial Court —
  36. S. 497 (1) imposes a restriction that if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life he shall not be released on bail — It will be only allowed if at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, it appears that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence. State v. Muhammad Bahram Khan 1994 SCR 272 (B)
  37. At the bail stage it is neither permissible nor desirable to make a deep scrutiny or minute study of the evidence on record. At the same time Courts are not expected to make an order in vacuum. The Courts of law are supposed to make a tentative assessment of the F.I.R., statements of P.Ws. recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, the recovery evidence, the defence plea if any and other circumstances and facts of the case and to reach a conclusion whether in the given circumstances the accused are entitled to the concession of bail or not. Zahid Paris v. The State 1995 SCR 104 (A)
  38. Heinousness per se is no ground for the refusal of bail — Although this is one of the factors coupled with prima facie involvement of the accused with the commission of offence to be taken into consideration for deciding bail matters but not the only factor — Therefore, on the mere ground of heinousness of offence or its gravity, the concession of bail cannot be refused to the accused-Appellants. Zahid Paris v. The State 1995 SCR 104 (B)
  39. Application for bail pending in the appellate Court — Trial Court informed of this fact — Trial Court ordered grant of bail — Trial Court acted improperly — Having come to know that the matter was pending before the appellate Court it should have stayed its hands and the only course open for it was to wait for the judgment of appellate Court. It is a minimum requirement of judicial propriety that when the question whether or not the accused persons were entitled to bail was under consideration of the higher Court the trial Court should refrain from deciding the question of bail. Trial Court pre-empted the decision of the Additional Zalee Adalat. Asghar Ali Malik v. Muhammad Ashraf & others 1995 SCR 155 (A)
  40. Trial Court passed the order in a mechanical way and disposed of the matter about grant of bail in one sentence. Order granting bail set-side. Asghar Ali Malik v. M. Ashraf 1995 SCR 155 (B)
  41. Before passing any order under section 497 the Court has to apply its mind whether the facts of the case warrant the grant or refusal of bail. The trial Court did not apply its mind and proceeded to order that bail bond may be executed as if it was the only course which could be adopted by it. After examining the nature of allegation and over all facts of the case the trial Court might have reached the conclusion that the accused were entitled to bail but a mechanical order like the present one cannot be upheld. Asghar Ali Malik v.  Muhammad Ashraf & others 1995 SCR 155 (C)
  42. At the stage of bail it was obligatory for the Trial Court and Shariat Court to look into F.I.R., the statements recorded under S. 161 Cr. P. C., medical report, the evidence recorded by the trial Court and the defence plea if any — Though at the bail stage the close scrutiny and deep appreciation of evidence is not permissible, yet its tentative assessment is not prohibited. After all the Courts are not supposed to pass an order in the air but on the basis of some material available. Mere heinousness or gravity of offence itself is no ground for the refusal of bail. Muhammad Nasim Khan v. The State 1995 SCR 237 (A)
  43. The grant of refusal of bail is not a license for the accused to be acquitted — Nor a permit for conviction of the accused where the bail is refused. Faiz Muhammad Khan v. Ashraf Khan & others 1995 SCR 240 (A)
  44. Matter of further inquiry — P.W. cited as eye witness not attributing any incriminating act to accused appellant — Irrespective of the fact as to whether the statement of the complainant and his brother is to be preferred over the statement of P.W. eye-witness, the fact remains that the case becomes of “further inquiry”. Bail granted. Shabir v. State 1995 SCR 363 (A)
  45. Held: That in bail matters this Court would interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts below only if the discretion has been exercised perversely or the same cannot be justified at all in view of the well settled principles of law. Appeal dismissed. M. Sadiq v. A. Karim 1995 SCR 365 (A)
  46. Concurrent findings of the Courts below are that there is sufficient evidence on the record which, prima facie, implicates the accused/appellant with the offence charged — Statement of Mst. Farzana cannot be brushed aside at this stage easily, because in our society an allegation which causes stigma to the honour of a lady is not ordinarily falsely levelled. There is no reason at this stage to hold that the accused person is not prima facie connected with the commission of offence with which he has been charged — Until and unless the discretion exercised by the Courts below is shown to be perverse or violative of settled principles of law that cannot be interfered with in bail matters by this Court. Appeal dismissed. S. Abrar H. Shah v. The State 1995 SCR 372 (A)
  47. Four eye-witnesses supported the prosecution case — Witnesses inmates of the house of the deceased natural witnesses of the occurrence — There is no reason to disagree with the view of the Courts below that the accused-appellant is, prima facie, connected with the commission of the crime — A close scruting of the material against the accused is not permissible. Appeal dismissed. Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1996 SCR 158 (A)
  48. Trial Court and the Shariat Court disallowed the concession of bail to the accused — Accused attributed role of killing one person and injuring the order by Kalashinkove — Held: There being concurrent finding by the two Courts below disallowing the bail — This Court normally does not interfere in the judicial exercise of discretion unless the same is shown as perverse, arbitrary or capracious. Bail refused.  Muhammad Amin Hussain v. The State 1996 SCR 313 (A)
  49. Observation of the Shariat Court — Appeal for expungement of — Any observation made by a criminal Court at bail stage is merely of tentative nature and should not weigh with the trial Court while appreciating the evidence — The trial Court has to appreciate the evidence on the record according to the well settled principles of law and should not be influenced by any tentative observation made by the Court during the proceedings in bail matters. Liaqat Ali v. Jehangir and another 1996 SCR 319 (A)
  50. Limitation for filing of bail application — No limitation prescribed for filing bail application — The petition moved by the respondents for their release on bail by setting aside the order recorded by the Additional District Criminal Court was in fact a bail petition. There being no period of limitation provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petition for bail could have been moved at any time by the said respondents. The objection raised by the appellant repelled. Muhammad Waheed v. Muhammad Saleem& 4 others 1996 SCR 232 (A)
  51. Shariat Court appreciating the evidence in minute details fell in grave error — The Shariat Court was not required at the bail stage to observe that the case against accused-respondents does not fall within the purview of section 5 of I.P.L. and the same falls under section 6 of the said Act — At the bail stage Shariat Court should have made tentative assessment of F.I.R., statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., medical evidence and the defence plea if any — The observation made by the Shariat Court in our considered view amounts to pre-empting the job of the trial Court. Thus the Shariat Court acted beyond its jurisdiction and in a way has seriously prejudiced the case of the prosecution. Muhammad Waheed v. Muhammad Saleem& 4 others 1996 SCR 232 (B)
  52. Challan against the accused was presented in the trial Court under sections 302, 324, 307, 34 A.P.C. At the time of occurrence the relevant offence applicable was section 5 of I.P.L. Act, but when challan was submitted the amendment in the relevant law had been introduced for which reason the challan was submitted under Penal Code. It is exclusively within the domain of the trial Court to reach after the end of trial, the conclusion whether the offence alleged against the accused falls within the purview of I.P.L. Act or Penal Code. Muhammad Waheed v. Muhammad Saleem& 4 others 1996 SCR 232 (C)
  53. In bail matters the authority given in one case is hardly helpful in another case; because the facts of two criminal cases are hardly identical. Zia–ul–Hassan Shah v.The State 1996 SCR 238 (A)
  54. In bail matters this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below. If an order pertaining to bail matter does not suffer from any legal defect which patently shakes the prosecution story, this Court is always slow to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts below. Zia-ul-Hassan Shah & another v.The State 1996 SCR 238 (B)
  55. Argument that the accused is a student and thus he may be released on bail repelled — Held: That ordinarily, if an accused person is, prima facie, connected with the commission of an offence of murder he cannot be allowed bail merely on the ground that the is a student. Nematullah and another v. The State 1996 SCR 247 (A)   
  56. If the pleas like grave and sudden provacation are supported by a tangible evidence, those can be considered at bail stage and the Shariat Court was not correct in holding that such a plea cannot be considered at the bail stage. Nematullah and another v. The State 1996 SCR 247 (B)
  57. Discretion exercised by the Shariat Court does not suffer from arbitrariness or violation of any settled principles on the subject. — Two persons belonging to the accused party received fire arm injuries while two others were injured with blunt weapons and it is yet to be seen who was the aggressor. The reasons recorded by the Shariat Court while granting bail were reasonable — The order passed by the Shariat Court needs no interference. Appeal dismissed. Sub. Sakha Muhammad Khan v. Tanweer and 3 others 1996 SCR 261 (B)
  58. If one of the learned Judges of the Shariat Court has decided a bail application a fresh bail application in the same case should be heard by the same Judge. — This principle is a salutary principle and it was observed that violation of this rule was regrettable — It was further laid down that where it is absolutely impossible to place the second or subsequent application before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the earlier bail application of the same accused or a same case it could be ordered by the Chief Justice that such a case be fixed for disposal before another Judge of that Court. Muhammad Tasleem Khan v. The State 1996 SCR 1 (A & B) PLD 1986 SC 282, PLD 1987 SC (AJK) 27, followed.
  59. Bail grant of — The consideration which weigh with the Courts while releasing an accused person on bail are altogether different from those seeking cancellation of bail of an accused person; similarly, in the instant case, there is no question of falling the case under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. as the said section did not exist on the statute book of Azad Kashmir at the relevant time. Muhammad Khalid Khan v. The State 1996 SCR 3 (A)
  60. If a person is not granted pre-arrest bail or after  having been granted it is cancelled on the ground that it was not a fit case in which pre-arrest bail should have been granted, there are two courses open for such an accused person. He may accept the verdict and may apply to the trial Court for after arrest bail. However, if he does not accept the verdict that he was not entitled to a pre-arrest bail he may file appeal against that judgment. However, before doing so he would have to surrender himself but his arrest will not change the nature of the case. The appellate Court would in such a case apply its mind to the question whether the judgment refusing bail was correct or not. If it is found that he was entitled to pre-arrest bail, bail can be granted to him. Arshad Mehmood & 3 others v. The State 1996 SCR 25 (A)
  61. In a fresh bail application matters which have been considered in the previous judgment cannot be re-examined. — A fresh bail application is not barred under law but it can only be moved as and when a fresh ground has become available. M. Waheed v.The State 1996 SCR 29 (A & B)
  62. Four eye-witnesses supported the prosecution case — Witnesses inmates of the house of the deceased natural witnesses of the occurrence — There is no reason to disagree with the view of the Courts below that the accused-appellant is, prima facie, connected with the commission of the crime — A close scruting of the material against the accused is not permissible.  Appeal dismissed. Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1996 SCR 158 (A)
  63. A bail order is not to be interfered with merely on the ground that this Court may take a different view. Ejaz Ahmed v. Imran Tipu and 3 others 1997 SCR 248 (A)
  64. Accused appellant also has six injuries some of them caused by pellets — Deserves the concession of bail. Muhammad Yunus v. The State 1997 SCR 195 (A)
  65. Bail — Further inquiry — Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. — Prima facie it is yet to be seen after recording of the evidence of the eye witnesses during the trial whether the present respondent shared the intention of those accused who inflicted the injury on the person of deceased — Only one injury inflicted to walayat Begum and Gul Nwaz p.ws. — Bail rightly granted by the Court below. Muhammad Fazal v. Zahid Mahmood & 3 others 1997 SCR 372 (A)
  66. Bail — Practice about bail matters in Pakistan — Practice of Supreme Court of Pakistan not necessary to be followed by this Court — Disposal of cases in Pakistan takes long time while this Court decides it in a few weeks. Shaukat Ali v. The State 1997 SCR 348 (A)
  67. Court discretion of — Bail granted by Courts below — Discretion validly exercised by the trial Court cannot be interfered with. M. Fazal v. Zahid Mahmood & 3 others 1997 SCR 372 (C)
  68. Even for the purpose of bail law is not to be stretched in favour of prosecution — If at all benefit of doubt arises even at the bail stage it must go to the accused. Muhammad Yunus and another v. Malik Muhammad Nawaz and 5 others 1997 SCR 125 (F)
  69. Further inquiry — No allegation of firing — Allegation that deceased was beaten with fists and kicks — Medical report negates the allegation — Further inquiry — Bail order by Shariat Court should not be interfered with. Ghulam Abbas v. Sarfraz and 10 others 1997 SCR 294 (B)
  70. In bail matters Supreme Court only interferes in the concurrent findings of Courts below if the same is found to be perverse or violative of settled principles of law. Shahpal v. Mazhar Hussain & 2 others 1997 SCR 73 (B)
  71. Interim bail — Abscondence of accused — No plausible explanation furnished. — Bail refused. Shaukat Ali v. The State 1997 SCR 348 (B)
  72. It is paradoxical to say that while considering as to whether there are sufficient ground to believe that an accused is guilty of an offence — Only prosecution’s evidence or any other material placed on record is to be looked into — It is imperative for Court of law to consider plea taken by the accused at the bail stage along with the material placed by the prosecution. Muhammad Yunus and another v. Malik Muhammad Nawaz and 5 others 1997 SCR 125 (B)
  73. Observations in bail matters are purely for the purpose of the bail — Any observation made either by Shariat Court or by this Court shall not prejudice the case of any of the parties. Muhammad Yunus and another  v. Malik Muhammad Nawaz and 5 others 1997 SCR 125 (G)
  74. Ordinarily the view expressed on bail matters in other cases is not helpful because each criminal case is to be decided in light of its peculiar facts. Shahpal v. Mazhar H., others 1997 SCR 73 (A)
  75. Pre arrest bail — Necessary condition for. Muhammad Yunus v. Malik Muhammad Nawaz and 5 others 1997 SCR 125 (C) PLD 1981 Lah. 599, 1994 SCR 136, PLD 1983 SC 82 Lah. relied
  76. Pre arrest bail — The Court has to make the tentative assessment of evidence brought on record — However the Court has to refrain by giving any conclusive finding on the question of guilt or innocence of the accused. M. Yunus and another v. Malik M.Nawaz and. 1997 SCR 125 (D)
  77. Question of vicarious liability — Determination of — Each case has to be seen in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances — Mere fact that police challaned the accused holding them vicariously liable for the murder — Held: The Court can look into material available at the stage of F.I.R. — The statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and medical report, recoveries can be looked into at the stage of bail. Muhammad Fazal v. Zahid Mahmood & 3 others 1997 SCR 372 (B)
  78. Subsequent application — Disposal of — Bench of Shariat Court /High Court has decided the bail application — Fresh application in the same case should be heard by the same Bench. Shaukat Ali v. The State 1997 SCR 377 (A)
  79. Subsequent bail application — Duty of counsel — Subsequent bail application must be placed for disposal before the same Bench who had dealt with the first application — Counsel must disclose the fact of previous application. Shaukat Ali v. The State 1997 SCR 377 (C)
  80. Successive bail application in the same case by the same person or co-accused should be heard by the same Bench who had already dealt with the matter to avoid contradictory order. Shaukat Ali v. The State 1997 SCR 377 (B)
  81. The name of Muhammad Rafique accused who fired shot and caused the death of Wajid included in the line of respondents by oversight — Held: His name shall be deleted from the line of respondents — Bail not allowed in this case. Ghulam Abbas v. Sarfraz 1997 SCR 294 (A)
  82. The bail order cannot be interfered with — Question of releasing accused on bail could be challenged at proper stage. Rangeel Ahmed Butt v. Zooni and 5 others 1998 SCR 18 (B)
  83. Counter version — Counter version or mere allegation of cross case itself not a ground of release of accused on bail — If there is some substance or truth, it makes a room for further inquiry. Nazir Ahmad Khan & 3 others v. State 1998 SCR 95 (E)
  84. Evidence — Appreciation of — Court is not excepted to go into deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage. Nazir Ahmad Khan & 3 others v. State 1998 SCR 95 (A)
  85. Court of law cannot decide even a bail matter in vacuum — It has to look into the contents of FIR, the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., medical report and defence plea, if any. Nazir Ahmad Khan & 3 others v. State 1998 SCR 95 (B)
  86. Bail — Plea of ‘desperate’ or ‘hardened’ criminal — Mere fact that the accused respondent allegedly caused two injuries with dagger to the deceased and injured two other members of the complainant party does not, per se bring him within the purview of ‘desperate’ or ‘hardened’ criminally especially so when he also allegedly sustained two injuries in the incident. Dubbing a person as a ‘hardened’ or ‘desperate’ criminal each case has to be decided in view of the material and not on the basis of mere allegation. M. Saddique v. M. Behram 1998 SCR 146 (A)
  87. Conclusion of trial — When statement of one of the witnesses has yet to be recorded, it cannot be said that the trial has been concluded — The accused remained in the custody for more than two years and nine months. Held: It is not in the fitness of things to refuse bail to the accused. Muhammad Saddique v. Muhammad Behram and another 1998 SCR 146 (B)
  88. Grant of — Exercise of discretion where the punishment is life imprisonment or death penalty — Held: The Courts are competent to make tentative assessment of allegations and come to tentative conclusion that in particular circumstances of case even though the sentence provided for an offence is death or life imprisonment but ultimately the nature of case may not warrant any such of sentence — If the data available is such that the assessment can be made about the possibility of lesser sentence, the grant of concession of bail can be considered.(Per Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi J) Aftab Ahmed v. The State 1999 SCR 519 (A)
  89. Discretion of Courts below — Value of — Both the trial Court as well as Shariat Court did not look into the relevant material from an objective point of view and exercised their discretion in a manner not warranted by law — A discretion which is not exercised in accordance with settled principles governing the subject or if the same is violative of law, it cannot be regarded as a valid & judicial exercise of the discretion. (Per Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, J) Aftab Ahmed v. The State 1999 SCR 519 (C)
  90. Bail grant of — Where the penalty is death, life imprisonment or equal to life imprisonment — And where discretion exercised by the Courts below on reasonable approach — Held: The appellant is charged with an offence which is punished with Qisas and , if proof in the forms specified in section 304 of the Penal Code is not available, with death or imprisonment of life — He can even be punished with imprisonment extending to 25 years, which is equal to life imprisonment, if according to injunction of Islam the punishment of Qisas is not applicable — Courts are generally disinclined for granting bail to the principal accused in cases carrying capital punishment — Courts below adopted reasonable approach while exercising discretion — Discretion exercised in bail matters cannot be lightly interfered with. (Per Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, j) Aftab Ahmed v. The State 1999 SCR 519 (D)
  91. Grant of — Respondent made two  statements before police — When bail application was moved before District Criminal Court two versions of incident were present — It is well settled that benefit of doubt goes to the accused even at bail stage. Babar H. v. M. Rashid Khan 1999 SCR 507 (A)
  92. Unless it is shown that the discretion exercised by trial Court as well as the Shariat Court is perverse, capricious or violative of principles relating to bail matters, this Court is always reluctant to interfere in judicial exercise of the discretion. Ali Akbar Khan v. Muhammad Qadeer Khan and another 1999 SCR 479 (A)
  93. Facts and circumstances in each criminal case are normally distinct than the other — If a bail is granted in one criminal case, it is not necessary that the same should be granted in the other case. Ali Akbar Khan v. Muhammad Qadeer Khan and another 1999 SCR 479 (B)
  94. Affidavit in defence — Value of — Irrespective of the fact whether the affidavit can be considered by the Shariat Court or not, to fact remains that every argument which is advanced by the accused-appellant, would be deemed to be his defence and same should be considered while accepting or refusing the bail application — Thus, while considering the allegations of the prosecution or for that matter various extracts from the book in question, the extracts of the book relied upon by the defence should have also been taken into consideration, wherein homage has been paid to the exalted personality of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him). Zahid Hussain Mirza  v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (C)
  95. Appreciation of evidence — It is well settled principle of law that while dealing with bail matters, the Court should not go into deep appreciation or evaluation of the evidence or incriminating circumstances; only a bride eye view should be taken by the Court in the light of the relevant material and deep probe into the evidence should be avoided — The learned Judge in the Shariat Court, no doubt, has mentioned in the impugned judgment that he was only taking a ‘prima facie’ view of the contents of the book but the perusal of the impugned judgment as a whole reveals that he has deeply probed into the relevant material; so much so that in some of the paragraphs he has clearly mentioned that the accused appellant is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged because he held in-correct views on certain questions — Such observations are not permissible while disposing of the bail matters because the same are likely to influence the mind of the subordinate Courts one way or the other, despite the fact that the superior Court records in the relevant judgment that its observations are based on prima facie, view of the matter. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (A)
  96. Bail — Cancellation of — Grounds for — Accused were released on bail by a separate order which was not assailed by way of appeal before Shariat Court — Supreme Court not competent to cancel bail. Abdul Aziz v. Muhammad Lal and 2 others 2000 SCR 375 (C)
  97. Bail — E.C.G. and X-rays showed that respondent had enlarged heart and that he suffers from heart failure in addition to being a case of unstable angina — Discretion exercised by the Shariat Court does not appear to be arbitrary. M. Rashid v. Zaidullah and another 2000 SCR 544 (A)
  98. Concurrent exercise of discretion — Concurrent exercise of discretion in bail matter has sanctity only if this Court finds that a settled principle of law has not been violated — As has already been indicated above, the Shariat Court, while dealing with the case in hand has been unduly influenced by the view that the accused entertained some beliefs which were not correct — It cannot be said that impugned order enjoys exception from scrutiny. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (E)
  99. Concurrent exercise of discretion — The trial Court and the Shariat Court have concurrently refused the concession of bail to the accused-appellant — This Court normally does not interfere in the judicial exercise of discretion if the same is neither perverse nor capricious. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (H)
  100. Defence version at a bail stage — No doubt the accused in his statement has expressed his words of respect and honour for the Holy Prophet(PBUH), but his statement is to be seen in the light of the contents of the book and his opinion contained therein — Though the Court is not precluded from taking into consideration the defence version of the accused if the same is taken by him or is inferable from the prosecution version — Prima facie an afterthought attempt is to be read in light of the contents of the disputed book — ‘FATWA’ written by various scholars cannot be relied upon at bail stage. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (G)
  101. Intention in a case under section 295-C — So far as the question of ‘intention’ of the accused-appellant is concerned, that is to be resolved in the trial after recording the evidence; the question as to whether ‘intention’ is relevant in case of an offence under section 295-C and to what extent, cannot be resolved in bail proceedings. Zahid H. Mirza v. The State  2000 SCR 184 (D)
  102. Offence under section 295(C) Penal Code — Prima facie reasonable grounds for believing that the accused-appellant is guilty of an offence under section 295(C) Penal Code, for which the sentence provided is a death and in cases where the accused is connected with an offence, the punishment of which is death the grant of bail is an exception while the refusal is a rule. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (F)
  103. Bail before arrest and bail after arrest — Difference stated. Alam Zaib v. M. Ramzan & another 2001 SCR 71 (A)
  104. Bail after arrest or before arrest can be refused on the sole ground of absconsion. Alam Zaib v. Muhammad Ramzan & another 2001 SCR 71 (B)
  105. Pre-arrest bail — Absconsion — Held: Absconder who seeks pre- arrest bail loses his right of bail after his abscondence. Alam Zaib v. Muhammad Ramzan & another 2001 SCR 71 (C)
  106. Pre-arrest bail — Absconsion — Held: Absence of accused was deliberate and falls within ambit of abscondence which disentitled him to seek pre-arrest bail — Bail cancelled. Alam Zaib v. Muhammad Ramzan & another 2001 SCR 71 (E)
  107. Pre -arrest bail — Grant of — Held: Discretion exercised in bail matter is disturbed only where the same offends the settled principles of law or patently illegal. Muhammad Akhtar v. Sohail Siddique and 2 others 2001 SCR 435 (A)
  108. Bail allowed by the Court below cannot be cancelled on the ground of recovery to be made when challan has already been submitted in the Court of law. A. Qayyum v. Adalat 2002 SCR 552 (B)
  109. The Supreme Court normally does not interfere in the discretion exercised by Shariat Court unless the same is shown to be perverse or against law. A. Qayyum v. Adalat 2002 SCR 552 (C)
  110. Pre-arrest — Bail cancelled by Shariat Court — It was required that the appellant could file his appeal after his surrender to the police. Rangbaz  v. The State and another 2002 SCR 544 (A)
  111. Appellant has filed his appeal without his surrender to the police and his explanation for not having been served in view of record not accepted — Held: That appeal was not competent — In view of conduct the appellant was not entitled to any interim bail. Rangbaz v. The State 2002 SCR 544 (B)
  112. Reasons — That the accused never repeated further infliction of blow by hammer and that the accused is behind the bars for about a month and challan has also been presented against him and that he is no more required for further investigation are hardly the grounds for releasing an accused on bail who is allegedly involved in a case which provides the punishment of 10 years or above in an offence. Dayam Mir v. Ghulam Hussain and another 2002 SCR 468 (A)
  113. Once a bail is granted to an accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the same cannot be rejected unless the discretion exercised by the Court granting bail is either perverse, capricious or arbitrary. Muhammad Shafat and another v. The State 2002 SCR 450 (B)
  114. Deep appreciation of evidence is not the requirement of law while deciding the bail application. Muhammad Akram Khan v. Mazhar Iqbal and 2 others 2002 SCR 444 (A)
  115. In criminal matters particularly in bail matters the authority in one case has hardly any relevancy to the facts and circumstances of other case. M. Akram Khan v. Mazhar Iqbal and 2 others 2002 SCR 444 (B)
  116. The principle that unless there be a fresh material the subsequent bail application cannot be considered is not a principle of universal application because a decision on bail application strictly speaking cannot be construed to be a judgment under section 369 Cr.P.C. M. Akram Khan v. Mazhar Iqbal and 2 others 2002 SCR 444 (C)
  117. Even the point urged and having not been decided in the first round of bail application shall be considered to be the fresh ground or material for the purpose of moving the subsequent bail application — Deeper appreciation of evidence or its evaluation is neither desirable nor permissible but at the same time the Court cannot decide even a bail application in vacuum. Muhammad Akram Khan v. Mazhar Iqbal and 2 others 2002 SCR 444 (D)
  118. In a murder case normally the bail is refused to a person who is prima facie found involved in the murder of human being — Bail is allowed only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of charges and his act requires detailed inquiry as such his case does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr. P. C. — In criminal cases matter of bail is to be decided with due care and caution. Nazir Ahmed Khan v. State and another 2002 SCR 173 (A)
  119. Point that recovery of 222-bore gun is doubtful and has not been made at the instance of accused, cannot be looked into as at the stage of bail only a tentative assessment of the evidence has to be made and one has not to dive deep into the evidence of the prosecution. Javed Alam v. The State and another 2002 SCR 284 (B)
  120. At bail stage it is obligatory for the Court seized with the bail matters to look into the F.I.R., statements of prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, recoveries, defence plea, if any — Appelltate Courts while deciding bail matters should not enter into deep appreciation of evidence — Restrict themselves to the tentative assessment of material available on the record — Appreciation of evidence and drawing a conclusion there from is within the exclusive domain of the trial Court — Appellate Courts should not anticipate certain results from such material while dealing with ancillary matters like bail — If during tentative assessment any doubt is available same must necessarily be resolved in favour of the accused. State v. Ghulam Rasool 2003 SCR 256 (A)
  121.  Bail matters are to be decided in the light of the material collected by police during investigation of the case — Bail matter is not to be decided in vacuum. Muhammad Yunus and another v. State and another 2003 SCR 478 (A)
  122. Credibility, scrutiny and truthfulness of the witnesses is to be adjudged by the trial Court at the time of the appreciation of evidence after the conclusion of trial — It is not within the domain of the superior Courts while deciding a bail application. Muhammad Arshad & another v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 5 others 2003 SCR 192 (B)
  123. Counter version — Counter version put forth by the subsequent investigating officer, if appears to be afterthought and not of any substance or truth, the same cannot be made ground for allowing bail. Muhammad Arshad & another v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 5 others 2003 SCR 192 (F)
  124. It is important to be considered that the Court while dealing with the question of bail can assess the incriminating material and the evidence brought by the prosecution as there are no restrictions on Court’s power to assess the evidentiary value of the material placed before it — Though the Court is not called upon to conduct anything in the nature of a preliminary trial to consider the probability of the accused’s guilt or innocence; it has nevertheless, to see whether there exist reasonable grounds upon which its belief can be founded. M. Idrees Kiani v. The State 2003 SCR 511 (B)
  125. It is important to be considered that the Court while dealing with the question of bail can assess the incriminating material and the evidence brought by the prosecution as there are no restrictions on Court’s power to assess the evidentiary  value of the material placed before it — Though the Court is not called upon to conduct anything in the nature of a preliminary trial to consider the probability of the accused’s guilt or innocence — It has nevertheless, to see whether there exist reasonable grounds upon which its belief can be founded — It is required that material placed before it by the investigating agency be looked. Zahurat v. Muhammad Rahim Khan and another 2003 SCR 496 (B) PLD 1978 S.C. 256 and 1995 SCR 104 rel.
  126. It is a settled principle of law relating to bail matters that once an accused person is granted bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it requires a very strong evidence connecting the accused with the commission of alleged non-bailable offence for cancelling his bail. Ehtesab Bureau, AJ&K v. Muhammad Hanif Shaikh 2003 SCR 427 (A)
  127. The question of bail is to be decided in light of F.I.R. statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the other material collected in support of the charges levelled against the accused persons. — In the present case the bail order passed by the District Qazi and confirmed by the Shariat Court in an arbitrary manner — Sharait Court had got very vast powers and can resolve the question of bail — However, in light of the request made by the learned counsel for the parties it appears appropriate to allow the Shariat Court to decide the reference in light of the facts of the case — Case remanded. Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Faraquat Hussain & others 2003 SCR 106 (B)
  128. This Court to avoid any prejudice to either of the parties, does not enter into the detailed facts, but it is settled law that Court cannot decide a bail matter in vacuum. Muhammad Nadeem Javed  v. Nisar Ahmed Khan & another 2003 SCR 340 (D) PLD 1978 S.C. 256 rel.
  129. To ascertain reasonable grounds it would be appropriate to see whether a prima facie case is disclosed against the accused for which the F.I.R., the statements of prosecution’s witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other incriminating material brought by prosecution including the recoveries etc. are to be taken into account. Zahurat v. M. Rahim Khan 2003 SCR 496 (C)
  131. While considering a bail matter of an accused involved in a non-bailable offence, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall not be released on bail unless the case is covered by any of provisos under sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr.P.C. — To form an opinion, the Court has to look into the F.I.R., the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other incriminating material collected by the prosecution, including any plea of accused — If it appears to the Court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail under sub-section (2) of  section 497 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Nadeem Javed v. Nisar Ahmed Khan & another 2003 SCR 340 (C)
  132. While dealing a bail matter of an accused involved in non-bailable offence if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life he shall not be released on bail unless the case is covered by any of the provisos o sub-section 1 of section 497 Cr.P.C. — But if it appears to the Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail under sub-section 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Idrees Kiani v. The State and another 2003 SCR 511 (A)
  133. S. 497(2) — While considering a bail matter of an accused involved in non-bailable offence if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life he shall not be released on bail unless the case is covered by any of the provisos of sub-section 1 of section 497, Cr.P.C. but if it appears to the Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail under sub-section 2 of section 497 Criminal Procedure Code. Zahurat v. M. Rahim Khan and another 2003 SCR 496 (A)
  134. Allegation of ‘Lalkara’, has a special significance in the occurrence — The aforesaid allegation coupled with the fact of absconsion for a period of more than six months certainly disallows concession of bail to the accused-appellant. Iftikhar H. v. The State 2004 SCR 308 (C)
  135. At bail stage prosecution evidence is not to be appreciated in minute detail — Only tentative assessment of evidence is permissible at the stage of bail. Maqsood Begum  v. Sarfraz alias Paloo 2004 SCR 9 (A)
  136. At bail stage scrutiny of evidence by the Court is not allowed — However, question of bail cannot be decided in vacuum — The Courts look at the material available on the record in the shape of FIR, medico-legal report, recoveries and other relevant material — Any opinion formed at bail stage is tentative in nature and is meant only to the question of bail. M. Jahangir v. Kala Khan and another 2004 SCR 359 (B)
  137. At the stage of bail the Court should not be drawn into a controversy about the merits of the prosecution to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused as the detailed merits are not required to be gone into at the bail stage — It has always been matter of consideration particularly in superior Courts to avoid any expression of opinion on the merits lest it may influence the trial Judge though he will not legally be bound by the view of the superior Courts in bail matters yet there is apprehension of being influenced by any of these remarks. Abdul Majid Khan v. The State 2004 SCR 145 (C)
  138. Authority in one bail matter not necessary to be applicable in the other bail matter because every case has its own peculiar facts & circumstances. Maqsood Begum v. Sarfraz alias Paloo and 3 others 2004 SCR 9 (E)
  139. Bail — Judicial discretion — Interference with — Normally this Court does not interfere in the judicial discretion exercised by lower Court but where it appear to be artificial and capricious this Court always interfere even at bail stage — Bail cancelled. Maqsood Begum v. Sarfraz alias Paloo and 3 others  2004 SCR 9 (D)
  140. Bail of accused-respondent was cancelled on conviction — Application moved before trial Court was disallowed on the ground that accused is not entitled to bail under statutory provisions of section 497 Cr. P.C. as the said provision of law were no more on the statute book — Order challenged in Shariat Court through revision petition was accepted — Held: The order is without any sanction of law as the bail allowed under the provisions of section 497 Cr. P.C. was cancelled at the time of his conviction — The said provisions of law were no more on the statute book — The order passed by the Shariat Court could not sustain — Order passed by Shariat Court set aside. Shamim Akhtar and another v. Muhammad Latif and another 2004 SCR 551 (A)
  141. Bail order cannot be made in vacuum — The Court has to pass an order keeping in view the material placed before it. M. Asif  v. M. Ilyas and another 2004 SCR 554 (B) PLD 1978 SC 256 rel.
  142. If the prosecution version remains unrebutted at the stage of bail it has to be believed as such. Maqsood Begum v. Sarfraz alias Paloo and 3 others 2004 SCR 9 (B)
  143. It is important to be considered by the Court at the bail stage and to see as to whether upon the material placed before it there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of having committed such a non-bailable offence punishable with death or transportation for life. Abdul Majid Khan v. The State 2004 SCR 145 (D)
  144. It is totally different to cancel a bail allowed to an accused person by a Court of competent jurisdiction than to allow bail to an accused itself. Maqsood Begum v. Sarfraz alias Paloo and 3 others 2004 SCR 209 (A)
  145. Other accused persons attributed the same allegations were granted bail — Rule of consistency attracted — Taking into account the facts and circumstances findings recorded by Courts below cannot be differed as those have been made after appreciating the facts and law. Iftikhar Hussain v. The State and another 2004 SCR 308 (A)
  146. Question of bail cannot be decided in vacuum — Court has to apply its mind on material available on record — However, sifting of evidence in minute detail is not allowed at bail stage — Merits of prosecution and defence are not to be considered in detail — It is the exclusive function of trial Court and the superior Courts while deciding bail matters are prohibited to anticipate certain facts while dealing with ancillary matters. Ghulam H. alias Kala v. Pervenn Bibi 2004 SCR 239 (A)
  147. The Courts specially the superior Courts must refrain directly or indirectly from giving any conclusive finding on the question of guilt or innocence of the accused to avoid any prejudice to any side but the Courts all the same cannot avoid to decide the same without looking into the material produced before them. Abdul Majid Khan v. The State 2004 SCR 145 (B)
  148. There is a mark difference between bail before arrest and seeking bail after arrest keeping in view the absconsion of accused — In both the situations, the facts and circumstances including the allegations and evidence collected in this regard have to be taken into consideration along with the alleged absconsion. Iftikhar Hussain v. The State and another 2004 SCR 308 (B)
  149. Unless some plausible explanation is furnished the bail already granted cannot be cancelled in vacuum. Ghulam Rasool v. Khadim Hussain and 5 others 2004 SCR 209 (B)
  150. “Lalkara” — The accused-respondent was empty-handed at the time of alleged occurrence — He was blamed for merely raising of ‘lalkara’ and instigating co-accused to fire at the complainant party — The true import of ‘lalkara’ shall be ascertained after recording the evidence of the prosecution — The case of the accused-respondent is one of further inquiry — Held: No error was committed by the trial Court while allowing bail to the accused. Muhammad Ameen & another v. Muhammad Yaseen and another 2004 SCR 369 (A) 1993 SCMR  1992 ref.
  151. Law requires to conduct tentative assessment of evidence — Minute appraisal of evidence may prejudice the case of either party — Supreme Court being Constitutional Court can intervene only if in its opinion the discretion exercised either way while deciding a bail matter is violative of recognised principles relating to bail matters — Judicial officer is not expected to exercise his discretion on whims, inferences, suspicions and mere allegations. Ghulam Hussain alias Kala v. Pervenn Bibi and another 2004 SCR 239 (B)
  152. While considering a bail matter of an accused involved in a non-bailable offence, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall not be released on bail unless the case is covered by any of the provisos maintained under sub-section (1) of section 497 Cr. P.C. — But if it appears to the Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr. P.C. Abdul Majid Khan v. The State 2004 SCR 145 (A)
  153. S. 497 Cr.P.C. — Bail to an accused person can be refused on the ground that the matter is covered by bar contained in section 497 Cr.P.C if in light of the material collected by prosecution during investigation an accused is connected with the commission of offence punishable with death or transportation for life — He can be released on bail only in such matters if his case falls within the exceptions in the said provision — In the present case the appellant cannot be awarded punishment of death, transportation of life or punishment for ten years or above — Single injury is attributed to the appellant — Keeping in view the seat of injury and the nature of injury whether section 324 APC can be invoked or not is a question which can be resolved by the trial Court after recording of evidence — The application of this provision of law needs further inquiry — Bail was rightly allowed by the trial Court as well as the District Criminal Court — Shariat Court and this Court can interfere only if it is proved that the discretion was illegally or capriciously exercised — Bail allowed. Sajid v. Wazir Hussain & another 2005 SCR 302 (A)
  154. While considering a bail application Court has to look tentatively the facts and circumstances of the case — Court is not expected to probe deep into merits of the prosecution case — It ascertains as to whether tangible evidence is available which left unattended. Mukhtar Hussain & another v. The State & another 2005 SCR 29 (A)
  155. If an accused is refused bail on a ground in the first round of litigation, the same ground cannot be made basis for bail in the subsequent application unless the circumstances change. Muhammad Hanif v. Muhammad Nisar Ahmed and another 2005 SCR 72 (A)
  156. At bail stage only a tentative assessment of the facts has to be made, not the deep appreciation or conclusion to be drawn from the facts. M. Munir Awan v. Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (N)
  157. It will not be appropriate to resolve any question of law or fact while deciding bail application — Controversy between the parties in a criminal case should be initially left for decision of the trial Court —  Any opinion in a bail matter by appellate Court about law definitely prejudice the case of the parties. M. Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (R)
  158. Bail is not be withheld as a punishment as injudicious incarceration of a person without strong grounds cannot remedy the wrong done by keeping him in confinement even if he is acquitted thereafter. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (S)
  159. Courts have to assess the evidence tentatively though no order has to be passed in vaccum without entering into the detailed merits of the case to avoid any prejudice, keeping in view the rule of consistency. M. Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJK Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (T)
  161. S. 324 APC — Single injury — Seat of injury and nature of injury — Further inquiry — Whether section 324 APC can be invoked or not is a question which can be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence — Application of this provision of law needs further inquiry — Held: The trial Court and the District Criminal Court rightly allowed the bail. Sajid v. Wazir Hussain & another 2006 SCR 55 (B)
  162. Bail — Cancellation of — The Supreme Court ordinarily does not disturb the tentative opinion expressed by Shariat Court on the merit of the case, but in case of conflict with the established principles for grant of bail or the order has been passed without taking into consideration the evidence available on record an appropriate order for cancellation of bail can be passed. Yasir Mehmood & another v. Basharat Aziz & another 2006 SCR 1 (A)
  163. Notice was served upon respondent No.1 — He received a copy of the notice but despite that did not appear — He has misused the concession of bail — Revision petition accepted — Concession of bail allowed to respondent cancelled. M. Israr v. M. Imran & another 2006 SCR 268 (A)
  164. Where it is pleaded that the act of an alleged accused is an offence or not, it is a valid ground for grant of bail or bail before arrest and bail cannot be refused or recalled simply because the investigating agency forwards a case to the Court under section 173, Cr.P.C. holding that an offence has been committed. Nazir Hussain v. Muhammad Farooq & 3 others 2007 SCR 454 (A)
  165. No bar can be created for an accused to file repeated applications for release on bail, nor can an embargo be placed on the powers of the Court to consider the application for bail at any time till the case remains before the trial Court — As soon as a fresh material is brought on record of the Court, the accused can file fresh application irrespective of the fact that the bail has been declined by trial Court or any appellate Court in the first round of litigation in respect of subject of controversy. Muhammad Mushtaq and another v. State & another 2007 SCR 479 (A)
  166. At bail stage only a tentative assessment of prosecution story or bird eye view is allowed. Muhammad Mushtaq and another v. State & another 2007 SCR 479 (B)
  167. Challan was submitted under section 302, APC, therefore, section 331 applicable to the instant case — Where sentence of ‘Diyat’ was awarded the Courts allowed the concession of bail suspending the sentence. Muhammad Owais v. The State 2007 SCR 302 (C) PLJ 1997 Cr.C.1139 rel.
  168. Sentence of ‘Diyat’ awarded to the petitioner is suspended — He shall be released immediately provided he furnishes a bail bond consisting of two sureties, containing the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of ‘Diyat’ failing which they will pay the amount of ‘Diyat’ in the District Criminal Court. Muhammad Owais v. The State 2007 SCR 302 (D)
  169. While considering the bail application the Court shall not embark upon the deeper appreciation of evidence — Only tentative assessment of evidence shall be made — If from the tentative assessment of evidence an inference can be drawn that the accused has committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life then of course  concession of bail shall not be extended to him — If the Court reaches to the conclusion that no reasonable ground appears to have been made out against the accused and further inquiry into guilt is required, then of course concession of bail shall be extended to him. Sr. Khan v. Ejaz & 4 others 2007 SCR 73 (A)
  170. Bail — Discretion exercised by lower Court — Interference of — The Supreme Court while considering a bail application shall not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court, unless the same has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Sr. Khan v. Ejaz & 4 others 2007 SCR 73 (B)
  171. Bail — Aerial firing — Attribution of — Not proved — Allegation of ‘lalkara’ — Yet requires further inquiry. Sardar Khan & another v. Ejaz & 4 others 2007 SCR 73 (C)
  172. Bail — Contention that respondents are habitual criminals and have committed so many other offences — Effect of — Until and unless the case is proved against respondents and sentence is awarded to them by a competent Court they shall be presumed to be innocent — Merely on the basis of F.I.R. and the role attributed to them the concession of bail cannot be declined to them. Sardar Khan & another v. Ejaz & 4 others 2007 SCR 73 (D)
  173. Evidence — Appreciation of — The Supreme Court while considering bail application shall not embark upon meticulous appreciation of evidence — Just a tentative assessment will be made. Farrukh v. The State & another 2007 SCR 79 (A)
  174. Discretion exercised by lower Courts — Interference with — Normally the Supreme Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Courts until and unless the same has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Farrukh v. The State & another 2007 SCR 79 (B)
  175. Consistency — Accused Javed inflicted injuries on head most vital part — Other accused inflicted injuries on the other parts of the body — Not vital as head — Concession of bail extended to Javed — The rule of consistency demands that concession of bail may also be extended to the appellants. Farrukh v. The State & another 2007 SCR 79 (C)
  176. Bail should not be withheld merely on the basis of punishment. Farrukh v. The State & another 2007 SCR 79 (D)
  178. Supreme Court has powers to allow bail on the grounds which have been raised in the previous round of litigation before the lower Court — Supreme Court is not bound by the findings of the lower Courts. Farrukh v. The State & another 2007 SCR 79 (E)
  180. Bail — Grant of — Misuse — Effect of — Respondent after grant of bail went abroad and did not appear before the Court — Document produced, prima facie, show that those have been manufactured — The respondent after obtaining concession of bail absconded — It is settled law that fugitive from law is not entitled to concession of bail — Held: The concession of bail allowed through order of Shariat Court is recalled because the respondent has misused the concession of bail. Aziz Bi v. Fazal Hussain & another 2007 SCR 138 (A)
  181. The Supreme Court while considering bail application not embark upon the meticulous appreciation of evidence but just tentative assessment of evidence is made — This Court shall not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court unless and until the same has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Masood Ahmed v. The State & another 2007 SCR 131 (A)
  182. At bail stage only a tentative assessment of prosecution case has to be made. Naseer Akbar & another v. The State & another 2008 SCR 198 (A)
  183. Incomplete challan was dismissed on 16.6.2005 — While dismissing incomplete challan trial Court dispensed with the appearance of accused persons including the petitioner till new challan is submitted in the Court — In presence of this order of trial Court bail granted by trial Court was cancelled on 31.10.2006 on ground of absconsion — Whether judgment dated 31.10.2006 bars a fresh application or a fresh application is competent and can be filed in presence of said order — Held: After submission of new challan in trial Court a fresh ground is available to the accused on the basis of which he can move an application  in trial Court. Fazal-e-Rabi v. State & another 2008 SCR 495 (A)
  184. In criminal matters the accused is at liberty to move an application for grant of bail whenever a fresh ground is available to him — Held: Filing of complete challan is a fresh ground which is available to the accused and he is entitled for moving a fresh bail application. Fazal-e-Rabi v. State & another 2008 SCR 495 (D)
  185. While deciding the bail matter the Court cannot make a decision in vacuum — It has to make a tentative assessment of the material before it — From perusal of material or evidence collected by prosecution if reasonable grounds appear on the basis of which the accused appears  to be connected with the crime, the bail has to be declined — If position is otherwise and reasonable grounds do not appear on the basis of which the accused can be connected with the crime and doubt, if any, arises in the case, benefit of doubt shall also be extended even at the stage of bail. Muhammad Sudheer v. State & another 2008 SCR 523 (A)
  186. Bail matters are in the discretion of Court — But the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. Muhammad Sudheer v. State & another 2008 SCR 523 (B)
  187. While deciding bail application a bird eye view of the facts is to be taken and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed. M. Ismail and another v. State & another 2008 SCR 584 (A)
  188. Bail should not be withheld merely on the basis of punishment — If ultimately the case is proved against the accused then he will be convicted. Sohrab Khan v. State 2008 SCR 632 (C)
  189. At bail stage the appellate Court has limited discretion to minutely swift the proposed evidence of the prosecution and what is allowed is to have a bird’s eye-view of the prosecution story, statements of prosecution witnesses and defence version, if any. M. Arif Khan v.Zahid H.2009 SCR 484 (A)
  190. Bail allowed to co-appellant — For reason that acquittal order was passed in his favour by a member of Additional District Criminal Court and order passed by a learned single Judge of Shariat Court sentencing him to death declared without lawful authority. Muhammad Alam & another v. The State 2009 SCR 458 (I)
  191. The Supreme Court abstain from interfering into bail granting order recorded by Shariat Court. Muhammad Arif Khan v. Zahid Hussain & another 2009 SCR 484 (C)
  192. A person who is convicted shall not normally be released on bail unless and until some other extraordinary circumstances are found. Ch. M. Riasat v. M. Asghar & another 2010 SCR 1 (B)
  193. An accused cannot be released on bail if reasonable grounds exist to connect him with the offence punishable with death or transportation of life — Even bail cannot be claimed as right nor is any Court bound to release the accused involved in a case punishable with lesser period of sentence — The requirement of law is that the Court has to make an assessment of evidence when statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded by the Court…. While doing so the Court has to be conscious that assesment or appraisal should not be in a manner to decide a fact, which is the authority of the trial Court. Mohsin Shamim v. The State & another 2010 SCR 92 (A)
  194. Argument — That there is no proof suggesting involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence by conspiring with or abetting the real killers of the deceased — Held: This arguments, if accepted, razes the whole of the prosecution story to ground which is not permissible for this Court to embark upon while deciding a bail matter. Ashfaque H. v. The State 2010 SCR 300 (D)
  195. At bail stage the Courts have to remain conscience as well that any of their observations about veracity of the prosecution evidence can adversely affect the case on merit pending in trial Court — Even the superior Courts are bound to make only tentative assessment and if ocular version appears to be trustworthy or reliable, it should not be discarded on the ground that secondary or confirmatory evidence suggests otherwise. Arshad Mahmood v. The State 2010 SCR 75 (D)
  196. Bail is a concession which is meant for those noble and respectable persons who have been roped into a case falsely and evidence against whom is not reliable and sufficient — Where conviction has been recorded the appellate Court should be more alert and cautious while suspending the sentence and allowing the concession of bail — It should not take it lightly and adopt it as a routine, otherwise it will be engender of encouragement to vandalism. Ch. M. Riasat and another v. M. Asghar & another 2010 SCR 1 (H)
  198. Cancellation of — When a Court of competent jurisdiction passes a bail granting order, some very strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation. No doubt bail can be cancelled if the accused hampers the investigation, repeats the offence or tries to hamper the prosecution evidence or commits some act of violence against the witness or the Court reaches to the conclusion that the order of releasing a person on bail is against the rules governing bail matters. Abdul Khaliq v. State and other 2010 SCR 402 (G)
  199. Cancellation of — This Court has held in many cases that the grounds for the cancellation of bail are quite different as compared to grant of bail. Held: — Once a bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it can only be recalled by this Court, if it appears to be perverse, arbitrary and without any reason or in violation of law. Further held: Even if there is a possibility to draw a different view that also is not considered a valid reason for recalling the concession of bail once extended in favour of accused. M. Asghar v. Arshad Anwar & another 2010 SCR 491 (A)
  200. Granting of — In majority judgments recorded by the superior Courts of sub-continent while elaborating and evaluating the expression reasonable grounds. It has been held that function of the Court while considering a bail matter is limited to find out whether there is material tending to connect the accused with the commission of offence which is considered opinion of the Court as well excludes the suspicion and at the same time does not mean evidence or proof — Held: the whole of the prosecution story and what floats upon the very surface of the proposed evidence is to be considered with obvious caution to avoid comments and clear findings qua the weight of evidence. Ashfaque Hussain v. The State & another 2010 SCR 300 (A)
  201. Grant of appreciation of evidence tentative not deeper:- At the bail stage a bird eye view of the evidence has to be taken. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage, however a bail order cannot be passed in vacuum. What ever material is available on record the Court has to scrutinize the same and form tentative opinion on its basis. Grant of — Sections 306 and 308 APC, whether attracted at bail stage — The appellant claims that his daughter is the heir of deceased as such under the provisions of Section 306 and 308, if the case is proved then too only a sentence of Diyyat can be awarded to and in such an eventuality he is entitled to bail of right. The analysis of provisions of law leads to the conclusion that if the Wali of the victim is a direct descendant of the offender then the sentence of Qisas cannot be imposed and the offender can be awarded punishment of Diyyat or any other appropriate sentence. Appellant is undoubtedly direct descendant of the legal heir of deceased. He will be liable to sentence under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 308 APC. Held — At this stage it cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant can be awarded sentence of 14 years apart from Diyyat or not. On this score the case becomes one of further inquiry. Abdul Khaliq v. State and other 2010 SCR 402 (A)
  202. Out of 12 accused persons of same incident with same set of witnesses all others including accused, who is allegedly equally responsible for shooting in the head of deceased, have since been acquitted of the charge of murder and that also under the powers of the Court more clearly visualized by section 249-A, which authorities the Court to acquit the accused among others on one of principles that lenghty trial of the case would not be justified and an accused will not ultimately be convicted — Held: Other accused have been acquitted, appellant deserves to be released on bail — Out of 53 witnesses, statements of only few have so far been recorded, which means that trial cannot be concluded within reasonable time, although it has already consumed more than 7 years — This fact is an additional factor for releasing of appellant on bail — Appeal accepted — Appellant admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000,000/- (ten million rupees). Mohsin Shamim v. The State & another 2010 SCR 92 (B)
  203. There is difference between the principle for grant or refusal of bail to a convict person and a person who has not been convicted or is yet under trial — A presumption of innocence is in favour of a person who is facing trial and not yet convicted by the trial Court — Unless and until a person is convicted, the presumption of innocence is in his favour — The moment he is convicted by a competent Court of law, he loses the initial presumption of innocence in his favour — A person convicted in non-bailable offence by competent Court of law will normally not be entitled to bail. Ch. Muhammad Riasat and another v.  Muhammad Asghar & another 2010 SCR 1 (A)
  204. While disposing of an application for bail the Court has to be conscious that the lapses and faults are committed by Police agency — If faults and irregularities committed by prosecution agency cannot constitute an adverse presumption against the defence, the same cannot also affect the prosecution version which is to be considered by the Court irrespective of police version. Arshad Mahmood & another v. The State & another 2010 SCR 75 (G)
  205. Bail — Grant  of — Section 497 Cr.P.C. read with section 7 ZHA — Bail — Grant of — Argument  that the appellant is hardly of 13 or 14 years of age and he being not an adult, cannot be sentenced for more than 5 years imprisonment, therefore, prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, which provides that an accused shall not be released, if he is charged of offences punishable with death, transportation of life, or an imprisonment of 10 years — Section 7, ZHA which deals with where the convict is not an adult does not only provide 5 years imprisonment or fine rather it provides that the convict can be awarded punishment of whipping not exceeding 30 strips. Held: Thus, the argument that propitiatory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the case, has no force. Ishtiaq v. State and another 2011 SCR 78 (A)
  206. Grant of — Accused charged with the offences under sections 409,419,420,467,468 and 471 APC read with section 5 (2) PCA — Courts below refused bail. Held: It is by now a settled principle of law that bail cannot be withheld on the ground that the accused is charged with the offence of embezzlement or misappropriation of huge amount — The orders recorded by the learned Anti corruption Judge and that of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court reveal that the appellant committed a serious offence, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail — The Court disagreeing with the same — Further held: The bail cannot be refused and the accused cannot be kept in jail only on the ground that he has committed a serious or heinous offence. Musadaq Naeem Arshad v. State & another 2011 SCR 82 (A)
  207. Cancellation of — Challan already submitted — Accused no more required for investigation — If the bail is cancelled and the accused respondents are sent behind the bars and ultimately they are acquitted. Held: There will be no price for the agony they will suffer. Further held: The bail cannot be cancelled as a punishment. Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Shabir & 12 others 2011 SCR 126 (A) PLD 1978 SC (AJ& K) 83, 1992 SCR 379, 1994 SCR 11 rel.
  208. Bail application — Its refusal or grant of — Deeper appreciation of evidence — Not permissible — Only tentative assessment of record available — At the bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible but the Court cannot decide a bail application in vacuum. Held: The record made available i.e. the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. any other material including the recovery evidence, medico legal report and of course, defence plea, if any, and other circumstances have to be looked into. Further held: The Court should not enter into the deeper appreciation of evidence and restrict itself to the tentative assessment of material available on the record against the accused that if the record remains unrebutted the same shall lead to inference of the guilt of accused or not.  Jahanzeb & others v. State & others 2011 SCR 180 (A)
  209. Bail — Cancellation of — The matter of cancellation of bail is to be viewed from altogether a different angle than the question of allowing bail to an accused person. Held: The discretion exercised by the trial Court for releasing a person on bail shall not ordinarily be disturbed by the Shariat Court unless it is found capricious, against law and in total disregard of the record. Jahanzeb & 4 others v. State & 3 others 2011 SCR 180 (D)
  210. Cancellation of — Concession of bail granted by the Courts below — So far the question of commission of offence by the accused released on bail is concerned, the trial Court and the Shariat Court has considered the matter in depth and observed that due to retraction of Suleman Soomro from his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the opinion of the investigating officer in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and the other evidence brought on record, their involvement requires further probe. Held: Although some observations amount to deeper appreciation of evidence touching the merits of the case but the Court avoids to comment in this regard because the Court is otherwise inclined to hold the order of concession of bail following the principle that bail granted to an accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a case cannot be cancelled unless the discretion exercised by the Court is either perverse, capricious or arbitrary. Bilal Ali v. Raja Mahfooz Khan & 3 others 2011 SCR 244 (A) 2004 P.Cr.L.J.864, rel.
  211. Bail — Grant of — Deeper appreciation of evidence available not allowed — Commission of offence —  Its proof or disproof cannot be looked into at bail stage — A cumulative consideration and appreciation of material brought on record provides reasonable grounds for believing the implication of the accused appellants. Held: At bail stage neither deep appreciation of evidence is required nor the Court has to express its opinion whether the commission of offence is proved or not because the question of proof or disproof falls in the domain of the trial Court to be decided at the stage of final disposal of the case. Further held: If prosecution succeeds in bringing on record reasonable grounds to believe regarding the guilt of accused, it suffices at bail stage. Bilal Ali v. Raja Mahfooz Khan & 3 others 2011 SCR 244 (B)
  212. Cancellation of — The two Courts below exercised discretion in a jurisdiction manner. Held: This Court normally does not interfere in matters where the lower Courts have exercised such discretion.  Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Shabir & 12 others 2011 SCR 126 (B)
  213. Grant or cancellation of — Deeper scrutiny or minute study of evidence on record is not permissible and at the same time the Courts are not expected to make an order in vacuum. Nasir Mehmood v. State & another 2011 SCR 166 (A)
  214. Grant of — The learned counsel wants the Court (I) to decide the question as to whether the related witnesses can be relied upon or not at bail stage (ii) to record finding on the post-mortem report, (iii) to dilate upon the question that if the statement of the accused recorded under S.164 Cr.P.C. when not put to the accused in the statement under section 242 Cr.P.C. and its effect on case at this stage, (iv) to decide the question that in FIR there is only allegation of one fire while 5 empties were recovered from the place of occurrence and the witnesses in the Court stated that a burst was fired. The scrutiny of these very matters will directly affect the case of the parties. Held: The decision on these points involves deeper appreciation of evidence — The learned Judge in the Shariat Court was justified while not deciding these points which fall in deeper appreciation of the evidence. Nasir Mehmood v. State & another 2011 SCR 166 (B) 1995 SCR 237, 2002 SCR 552, PLD 1985 SC 82 rel.
  215. Grant or refusal — Points to be taken in to consideration. Held: While deciding a bail matte, the Court has to make a tentative assessment of the FIR, statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. recovery evidence, the defence plea, if any, circumstances and facts of the case on the basis of which the conclusion can be drawn whether the accused is entitled for the concession of bail or not. Nasir Mehmood v. State & another 2011 SCR 166 (C)
  216. Raising of Lalkara — Significance — Lalkara assumes importance in criminal case, moreso, at bail stage if the Court is of the opinion that in the given circumstances, unless such lalkara was raised, the arrest of accused couldn’t have fired — It would be an active role of two sides having confronted each other and one of the participants asks his co-participants to resort to violance i.e. use of weapons — Without Lalkara occurrence could not have been resulted in such an end — Such type of lalkara can be termed as command and not merely proverbial lalkara — No hard and fast rule regarding the effect of lalkara for the purpose of bail can be determined and the significance, importance and implication of lalkara is to be laid down with reference to the context in which the same is ultered.  State through Adv. General v. M. Younas and 3 others 2013 SCR 92 (A)
  217. While dealing with the bail matters, the Courts have to confirm themselves only to the material collected by the prosecution in favour of F.I.R., the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and defence version. Malik Mudassar Hayat v. The State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir 2013 SCR 854 (B)
  218. At Bail stage the Court has to make tentative assessment of the material i.e. F.I.R., statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and version of accused, if any — Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible — Only a bird-eye view of the evidence/material has to be taken. Shoaib Anwar Versus Malik Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others 2013 SCR 1195 (B)
  219. ancellation of — this Court normally does not interfere in the discretion exercised by two Courts below provided the discretion has been exercised in a lawful manner. Farzana Imtiaz v. Tariq Hussain & another 2014 SCR 149 (E)
  220. Bail — grant of — deeper appreciation of evidence not permissible but application cannot be decided in vacuum.  It is obligatory for the Courts to consider FIR, statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the other material collected by the prosecution and also the version of accused, if any.  Asjad Mahammod v. The State 2014 SCR 173 (B) 2011 SCR 180 ref.
  221. Bail — grant of — discretion exercised by the Courts below — accused nominated in FIR — Two injured eyewitnesses out of four — Specific role of firing and giving spear blows on vital parts of bodies of victims attributed — courts below dismissed bail application — Shariat Court concurred with the opinion of Courts below — Held; this Court normally does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below in bail matters unless the same is arbitrary, capricious, against the record and patently illegal. Asjad Mahammod v. The State 2014 SCR 173 (C) 2007 SCR 131 and Ameer Qabal vs.The State & another (Cri. Appeal No.23/2012 dated 28.11.2012) ref.
  222. Bail — cancellation of — case is at the stage of recording the evidence — maximum punishment provided for the alleged offence is 3 years imprisonment — Held: in such circumstances, for declining concession of bail, there must be some extraordinary circumstances and normally bail cannot be refused in such like circumstances. Gulzar Ah. v. Khizar Nadeem 2014 SCR 234 (A)
  223. Bail—cancellation of — held: once bail is granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, same cannot be recalled as a routine matter. Gulzar Ahmed v. Khizar Nadeem & another 2014 SCR 234 (B) 2010 SCR 491, 2004 SCMR 231, ref.
  224.  Bail — cancellation of — Nothing on record that the accused has made any overt act during occurrence — challan already submitted that trial is in progress — when the trial is already commenced, Held: the superior Courts are always slow to interfere with unless some patent illegality comes on record. Nazir Ah. & 3 others v. Ghulam H. & another 2014 SCR 409 (A)
  225. Bai l — cancellation of — it is settled principle of law that once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, there must be overwhelmining circumstances to cancel the same.  Nazir Ahmed & 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain & another 2014 SCR 409 (B) 2006 SCMR 66 ref.
  226. Bail — cancellation of — once bail has been granted, same cannot be cancelled unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Nazir Ahmed & 3 others v. Ghulam H. & another 2014 SCR 409 (D)
  227. Bail — cancellation of — it is settled principle of law that considerations for cancellation of bail are quite different and once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction there must be overwhelming circumstances to cancel the same. Nazir Ahmed & 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain & another 2014 SCR 409 (E) 2004 SCR 209 ref.
  228. Bail — contention that the accused involved in the guilt of jail breaking — accused-respondent has not been convicted by any Court of law, held: mere registration of number of cases against the person does not disentitle him for concession of bail if otherwise he is entitled. Nazir Ahmed & 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain & another 2014 SCR 409 (F)
  229. Grant of — tentative assessment of evidence — at bail stage only a tentative assessment can be made and deeper appreciations not warranted.  The Court has to form opinion on the basis of FIR and the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Manzoor Hussain v. Ghulam Abbas & another  2014 SCR 424 (A)
  230. Cancellation of — tentative assessment of record at bail stage — FIR, statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C., the Medico Legal Report and of course defence plea, if any, have to be considered.  Held: this Court normally does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Shariat Court unless the discretion is found capricious, against the settled norms governing the bail matter and against the record. Zaffar Mehmood v. Muzaffar & another 2014 SCR 544 (A)
  231. Cancellation of — the question of cancellation of bail and grant of does not stand on the same pedestal as the rules governing the grant of bail are different than the one applicable for cancellation of bail.  Held: once the bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, very strong reasons are required for its cancellation. Zaffar Mehmood v. Muzaffar & another 2014 SCR 544 (B)
  232. Cancellation of — mere argument without any record that the accused is tempering with the evidence cannot be believed and bail cannot be cancelled on this ground. Zaffar Mehmood v. Muzaffar & another 2014 SCR 544 (C)
  233. Successive applications for grant of bail — maintainability — contention no fresh ground was available — first and second bail applications dismissed — third bail application moved after filing of challan. Held: filing of challan furnishes of a fresh ground. WAPDA  and another v. Shahid Mehmood & 2 others 2014 SCR 579 (A)
  234. Cancellation of — challan already submitted — accused no more required by the police for investigation — Held: if the bail is cancelled and the accused are sent behind the bars and ultimately they are acquitted, there will be no price for the agony they will suffer. WAPDA and another v. Shahid Mehmood & 2 others 2014 SCR 579 (B)
  235. Cancellation of — the discretion exercised by the trial Court and the High Court is not ordinarily disturbed by this Court. WAPDA and another v. Shahid Mehmood & others 2014 SCR 579 (C)
  236. Cancellation of — the matter of cancellation of bail is considered by the courts altogether from a different angle as compared to that of grant of bail — the rules governing the grant of bail stand at a different footing as compared to cancellation of bail — Normally the Court refrains from cancelling the bail where the trial Court and High Court have exercised discretion in a judicious manner — this Court has jurisdiction to cancel the bail if it is found that the order passed by the Courts below is capricious, against the record or against the settled rules governing the bail matters. WAPDA and another v. Shahid Mehmood & 2 others 2014 SCR 579 (D)
  237. Cancellation of — Once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, same cannot be recalled as a routine matter. Arbab v. Muhammad Riyasat & 7 others 2014 SCR 855 (A) 2010 SCR 491& 2004 SCMR 231 ref.
  238. Cancellation — tentative assessment — for disposing of a bail application. The Court can form the opinion on the basis of material, i.e., allegation levelled in the FIR, statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C. — deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not warranted and only a bird eye view has to be taken. Muhammad Arif v. Babar and another 2014 SCR 916 (A)
  239. Bail cannot be withheld as punishment if otherwise the accused is entitled for the same. Normally, this Court always reluctant to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.  Nobody should remain in jail for any indefinite period.  Even otherwise, the bail is not acquittal; it is only a change of custody. Muhammad Arif v. Babar and another 2014 SCR 916 (B)
  240. Cancellation of — once a bail has been granted, there must be overwhelming evidence for its cancellation. Muhammad Arif v. Babar and another 2014 SCR 916 (C) Muhammad Asghar Khan v. Irfan Sharif & others, Criminal Revision Petition No.2/2008, decided on 17.2.2012, and 2003 SCR 427 rel.   
  241. No deeper appreciation of evidence at bail state — It is cardinal principle of law that while dealing with the bail matters, the Courts are bound to confine themselves to the tentative assessment of the material available brought on record rather to go into the deeper appreciation of the evidence. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (D)Basic concept of — the basic concept of the bail is, that no innocent person be kept behind bars until and unless prove guilty. Every accused is deemed to be innocent until his guilt is proved. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (E)
  242. No legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (G)
  243. Offences falling under the prohibitory clause, — In the case falling under the prohibitory clause, the Court after tentative assessment of the evidence if comes to the conclusion that prima facie some doubts are arising into the guilt of an accused, the Court is empowered to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused and may release him on bail. Held:  It is settled principle of law that the doubt if any arising in a case must be extended in favour of the accused even at bail stage. Liaquat Hussain v. The State & another 2015 SCR 441 (C)
  244. Cancellation of — hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal — contention of the complainant that the accused- remained involved in a number of such like criminal cases — accused not entitled for concession of bail — Held: that mere registration of case cannot be considered as a material for refusing the concession of bail unless the commission of offence alleged in that case is proved and the accused is awarded punishment. Nothing has been brought on record that the accused-respondent was convicted for commission of any offence alleged against him in any other case. Therefore, the case of the accused-respondent does not fall within the definition of desperate, hardened and dangerous criminal. R. M. Farid Khan v. Raja Sheraz &others 2015 SCR 465 (A)
  245. Cancellation of — Principle — Held: once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, same cannot be cancelled unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Raja Muahmmad Farid Khan v. Raja Sheraz & 2 others 2015 SCR 465 (C) Muhammad Iqbal vs. Sohail Akthar  & another (Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2010 decided on  28.2.2012  rel.
  246. Cancellation of — Principle — Held: once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, there must be some extraordinary and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the same. Raja Muahmmad Farid Khan v. Raja Sheraz & 2 others 2015 SCR 465 (D) Muhammad Yasin vs. Mst. Safia  Bibi (Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2013  decided on  19.2.2014  rel.
  247. Grant of — At the bail stage only a cursory view of the evidence has to be taken — Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible but a bail application cannot be decided in vacuum — the FIR, the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., medico legal report and of course the version of the accused, if any, has to be considered for the purpose. Khalid Mehmood v. The State & another 2015 SCR 588 (A)
  249. Bail — Grant of — the statement of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside ordinarily. Khalid Mehmood v. The State & another 2015 SCR 588 (B)
  250. Bail — Grant of — Lalkara — the true import of lalkara has to be judged after recording the evidence but at bail stage, lalkara has to be looked in the light of total circumstances of the case — If the accused is attributed mere lalkara then too, it has to be looked upon that what is the effect of mere lalkara — If a person who is attributed mere lalkara, has an influence upon the other co-accused, who being under his influence are bound to accept this, then mere lalkara is sufficient for refusal of bail — An accused who is attributed lalkara has no influence over the other co-accused, he cannot be refused bail on the basis of mere lalkara — Where an accused apart from raising lalkara is attributed some other overt act, then such person is not entitled for concession of bail. Khalid Mehmood v. The State & another 2015 SCR 588 (C) 2013 SCR 92 rel.
  251. Grant of — Argument that statement, of the prosecution witnesses were recorded after a period of four months — Second investigation, these two witnesses filed the affidavits that they have not  recorded their statements u/ s 161 Cr.P.C — the accused was not present at the time of occurrence — Five injured eye witnesses stated in their statements that the accused raised lalkara and also caught hold of the deceased —  The statements of five witnesses, who are injured witnesses, cannot be brushed aside. Khalid Mehmood  v. The State & another 2015 SCR 588 (D) M. Younus vs. Zameer Hussain  and others (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014, decided on 12th December 2014) rel.
  252. Cancellation of — At bail stage only a bird eye view of evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation is not permissible. Akbar Ali v. Munir Ahmed & 3 others 2015 SCR 598 (A)
  253. Cancellation of — Held: When a bail is granted to an accused by the Court of competent jurisdiction, very strong reasons are required to cancel the same — Further held: the grounds for grant of bail are altogether different as compared to cancellation of bail — the discretionary powers exercised for grant of bail by the trial Court and the Shariat Court are normally not interfered with by this Court. Akbar Ali v. Munir Ahmed & others 2015 SCR 598 (B) 2014  SCR 544, 579 ref.
  254. Section.497, Cr.P.C — sections 302  and 34, A.P.C — grant of — further inquiry — according to the celebrated principles of administration of criminal justice, for bringing the case of accused within the ambit of further probe and inquiry, there must be some ambiguity in the prosecution story or some chain of prosecution story should have been missed or reasonable grounds and circumstances appealing to a prudent mind that for connecting the accused with the commission of alleged offences, some material is further required, must be existed. In the instant case, the prosecution story is very brief, clear and unambiguous.  The tentative assessment of the evidence is sufficient to believe that the role attributed to the accused-respondent is satisfactorily established. Ehsan Ullah v. Muhammad Farooq & another 2015 SCR  865 (A)
  255. Grant of — consideration and assessment by court — sufficient grounds — existence of according to the celebrated principle of law, at bail stage, the Court has to assess the material brought on record for making the opinion whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that against the accused, the commission of non-bailable offence has been established.  Ehsan Ullah v. Muhammad Farooq&another 2015 SCR 865 (B)
  256. Conduct of accused — irrespective of result of injury attributed to accused — irrespective of the fact whether the injury attributed to the accused resulted into death or not, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, the conduct of the accused-respondent is of much consideration. Ehsan Ullah v. Muhammad Farooq & another 2015 SCR  865 (D)
  257. Decision of — depends upon — peculiar fact — further inquiry — it is settled law that every bail matter has to be decided in the light of its peculiar facts and there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. In our considered view, there is sufficient material for believing that the accused-respondent is involved in commission of non-bailble offences, therefore, the order passed by the Shariat Court is not according to law. The accused-respondent’s case does not fall with the ambit of further inquiry thus, we are constrained to accept this appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of the Shariat Court. Ehsan Ullah v. M.d Farooq&another 2015 SCR  865 (E)
  258. Bail on the statutory ground — The accused moved an application for seeking bail on the statutory ground as the trial of the case could not be concluded within a period of two years. Held: The law gives a right to the accused to be released on bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of two years. Iftikahr Mehmood v. State & another 2015 SCR 1060 (A)
  259. Bail on the statutory ground — The trial Court refused to released on bail — in spite of the fact that the statutory period of two years regarding conclusion of trial has been elapsed — while refusing the concession of bail the Courts below assigned the reason that the element of brutality is available in the case as the occurrence took place on the Eid day. Held: that mere fact that the occurrence took place on Eid day does not debar to release an accused on bail until the case of the accused otherwise comes within the purview of 4th proviso to sub-section 1 of section 497, Cr.P.C. Iftikahr Mehmood v. State & another 2015 SCR 1060 (B)
  260. On the statutory ground — declaring accused as hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal — occurrence took place on the Eid day — the trial Court refused the concession of bail while observing that the accused are hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminal — as the occurrence took place on the Eid day — Held: The prosecution has not produced any record from where it could be ascertained that the accused are previously convicted or have been involved in any other criminal case. Further held: Mere cause of death by firing is not sufficient for declaring an accused as hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal. In such like situation, the right which has been conferred by law, cannot be taken away on the ground that the occurrence took place on Eid day. Iftikahr Mehmood v. State & another 2015 SCR  1060 (D) 2014 SCR 750 & 2014 SCR 149 ref.
  261. On statutory ground — contention of the complainant that the trial is in progress and almost prosecution evidence has been completed and only two or three witnesses are yet to be examined — Held: that commencing of trial does not impose any clog for releasing the accused on bail. Further held:  that a statutory right has been accrued in favour of the accused-appellants on non-conclusion of trial within the stipulated period, therefore, the bail cannot be withheld if no other condition is attracted which may impose an embargo for releasing the accused on bail. Iftikahr Mehmood v. State & another 2015 SCR 1060 (E)
  262. It has been settled by the superior Courts that the principles for grant of bail and cancellation of the same are quite different — once bail has been granted, same cannot be cancelled unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Tabrez Iqbal v. Sughra Begum & others 2015 SCR 1480 (B) 2012 P Cr. L.J 1973 rel.
  263. Deeper appreciation of the case — at bail stage — The Court is not expected to probe deep into merits of the prosecution case. Tabrez Iqbal v. Sughra Begum & others 2015 SCR 1480 (C)  2005 SCR 29 rel.
  264. deeper scrutiny of evidence — at the bail stage — Held: that deeper security of evidence is not warranted under law at the bail stage — Further held: that as the thorough scrutiny of evidence is the job of the trial Court.  Liaquat Hussain v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1544 (G)
  265. Cancellation of — It is settled principle of law that once bail has been granted, the same cannot be cancelled unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.M. Arshad v. M. Younis 2016 SCR  512 (D)
  266. Cancellation of — no complaint for misuse of concession of bail — trial in progress — statements of 3 PWS recorded — Held: in such situation, the Courts are always reluctant to interfere with the orders relating to the bail matters until the same are found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful. M. Arshad v. M. Younis & another 2016 SCR  512 (E)1992 SCMR 1418 & 1996 SCR 238 ref.
  267. Cancellation of — The grounds for cancellation of bail are altogether different as compared to those for grant of bail — The discretionary powers exercised by the Court of competent Jurisdiction while granting bail are normally not interfered with by this Court. Zia Wakeel v. Nadeem Akram & another 2016 SCR 538 (B) 2014 SCR 544 & 579 rel.
  268. Grant of —further inquiry — it is settled law that if the case of further inquiry is made out, then the accused can be extended concession of bail. Zia Wakeel v. Nadeem Akram & another  2016 SCR 538 (C)
  269. Cancellation of — Supreme  Court normally does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court of competent jurisdiction unless the same is found perverse, capricious, arbitrary and against the settled norms governing the bail matters and against the record. Saidullah Khan & another v.  Sohrab & 3 others 2016 SCR  569 (A)
  270. Cancellation of — The cancellation and grant of bail does not stand on the same footings as the rules governing grant of bail are quite different as compared to cancellation of bail — Held: once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, strong reasons are required for its cancellation. Saidullah Khan & another v. Sohrab 2016 SCR  569 (B) 2010 SCR 491 & 2011 SCR 126 rel
  271. Cancellation of — offences under sections 324 and 337, A.P.C. — at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment can be made and deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted under law.  The Court has to form the opinion on the basis of allegations levelled in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Gulzar Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan & another 2016 SCR 1089 (A)
  272. Cancellation of — offences under sections 324 and 337, A.P.C. — considerations for cancellation of bail are quite different — once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, there must be overwhelming circumstances to cancel the same. The same can only be interfered with if it is found perverse, unreasonable, arbitrary or manifestly wrong. Gulzar Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan & another 2016 SCR 1089 (B) 2015 SCR 598 & 2014 SCR 544 rel.
  273. Cancellation of — misuse of bail — Contention that due to threats extended by the accused, he failed to produce the prosecution witnesses before the Court —Held:  complainant has failed to bring any document on record in support of his version. Mere argument that the accused-respondent after getting the concession of bail misused the same, cannot be accepted. No useful purpose can be achieved to send the accused behind the bars. Gulzar Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan & another 2016 SCR 1089 (C)
  274. Cancellation of — offences under sections 341, 337-A, 337-F, 147, 148 and 149 A.P.C. — The grounds for grant of bail are altogether different from those for cancellation of bail. Hafiz Abdul Haleem v. Furqan Sabir 2016 SCR 1264 (B) 1992 SCR 379, 2011 SCR 126, 2014 SCR 409 rel.
  275. Cancellation of — when bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the lower Court or the Shariat Court has exercised the discretion in a judicious manner, Supreme Court is very slow to interfere with. Hafiz Abdul Haleem v. Furqan Sabir & 4 others 2016 SCR 1264 (C) 2015 SCR 598 & 2014 SCR 579 rel.
  276. Cancellation of — investigation  complete — Challan has already been submitted and the trial is in progress — The accused respondents are not required by the police for investigation — Held: Bail cannot be cancelled as a punishment. Hafiz Abdul Haleem v. Furqan Sabir & 4 others 2016 SCR 1264 (D) 
  277. Grant of — offence u/s. 12 ZHA — observed that at the bail stage only a bird eye view of the evidence has to be taken, deeper appreciation of the record is not permissible but application cannot be decided in vacuum — Held: the record i.e. FIR, statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C., medical report if any and of course, the version of the accused if any, have to be considered. Aqib Hanif v. Hamza Jahangir & another 2016 SCR 1371 (A)
  278. Grant of — appreciation of evidence tentative not deeper — The Court of law is required to make only tentative assessment of material, placed on record by the prosecution and no definite opinion shall be formed, conducting a pre-trial inquiry or deeply appreciating the evidence on record because such exercise is not permissible at bail stage. Sudheer Shah alias Kala Shah v. The State and another 2016 SCR 1653 (E)
  279. Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C. — Case of further inquiry — if from the tentative assessment, it appears that the case of the accused is one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. then the grant of bail becomes the right of the accused. Sudheer Shah alias Kala Shah v. The State and another 2016 SCR 1653 (F)  2010 SCR 402 & PLJ 2016 SC 14 rel.
  280. Case of further inquiry — commencement of trial — Effect — contention that the trial is in progress and at this stage the bail application is not entertainable — Held: the commencement of trial is no hurdle to grant bail to an accused if the case of further inquiry is made out. Sudheer Shah alias Kala Shah v. The State and another 2016 SCR 1653 (H) 2014 SCMR 12 rel.
  281. Cancellation of — offences under sections 341, 337-A, 337-F, 147, 148 and 149 A.P.C. — At the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is to be made — deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. Hafiz A. Haleem v. Furqan Sabir & 4 others 2016 SCR 1264 (A)
  282. —cancellation of—under offences, 34,377,506 APC and 12 ZHA—case of further inquiry—commencement of trial—effect— the commencement of trial does not debar to release the accused on bail when the case of further inquiry is made out. Shah Zaman v. Ashiq Hussain & another 2017 SCR 415 (A)  2014 SCMR 12 rel.
  283. — cancellation of—under offences, 34,377,506 APC and 12 ZHA— It is settled principle of law that the circumstances prerequisite for grant of bail are absolutely different from that for cancellation of the same. Once the accused has been released on bail, his liberty cannot be interfered with lightly. For cancellation of bail it has to be seen; whether, bail granting order was patently illegal, erroneous factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Shah Zaman v. Ashiq Hussain & another 2017 SCR 415 (B)
  284. — Bail cannot be withheld as punishment as it amounts to conviction without trial which is not permissible under law. Shah Zaman v. Ashiq Hussain & another 2017 SCR 415 (C)
  285. —calculation of— it is celebrated principle of law that once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction there must be overwhelming circumstances to cancel the same. Farzana Begum & others v. Sohail Umer & another 2017 SCR 420 (C)
  286. —Right of the accused— if from the tentative assessment, it appears that the case of the accused is one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. then the grant of bail becomes the right of the accused. Farzana Begum & others v. Sohail Umer & another 2017 SCR 420 (D) PLJ 2016 SC 14 rel.
  287. —matters to be looked into—at bail stage—a bird eye view permissible—It is settled principle of 1aw that at the bail stage only a bird eye view can be made on the material brought on the record in the form of FIR, medico-legal report and contents of statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.    Sub.Maj.(r) Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Abid Shah & another 2017 SCR 1343 (A)
  288. —section 377, APC—Affidavit consideration at bail stage—not appreciated—It may be observed here that the affidavit filed by some people of the locality in favour of the accused cannot be treated as evidence to grant concession of bail. Moreover the affidavits produced by the accused in support of the bail application have neither been sworn in or presented by the deponents attested by the Oath Commissioner, hence, cannot be termed as evidence on the basis of which the accused could be released on bail. Sub.Maj.(r) Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Abid Shah & another 2017 SCR 1343 (C)  1985 P.Cr.L.J. 1546 rel.
  289. —sections 10,11 and 19 ZHA, 1985—concession of bail— consent of alleged abductee—case of further inquiry—no mark of violence shown on her body, in medical report—commission of sexual intercourse reported in medical report—the alleged abductee has been also been challaned as accused and released on bail—authenticity of the medical report or forceful abduction can only be seen by the trail Court after recording evidence—all these makes the case one of further inquiry—under the settled law where a case of further inquiry is made out, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail. Bail granted in circumstances. Muhammad Javaid vs The State & 3 others 2018 SCR 1147 (A)
  290. —sections  302  and  34  APC—section  497(2),  Cr.P.C.—principle for grant of bail—case of further inquiry—absence of histopath report—doctor’s opinion, cause of death might be heart attack or brain hemorrhage —prima facie the absence of definite opinion by the doctor regarding the cause of death of the deceased coupled with the factor of non-availability of the histopath report on record, makes the case one of further inquiry and bring the same under the provisions of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and it is settled principle of law that if the case of further inquiry is made out, then the accused shall be released on bail. Muhammad Nazir Mir vs The State & another 2018 SCR 1155 (A)
  291. —Offences under sections, 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 337-F (1,2), 337-D APC and 15(2) AA — cancellation of — deep appreciation of evidence is not warranted—however, the Court cannot decide the bail application in vacuum—ca take into consideration the prosecution evidence, defence plea—opinion of the investigating officer. After making tentative assessment, if the Court is of the opinion that there are circumstances on the basis of which the accused can be released on bail then the Court hesitate to grant the bail because curtailment of liberty of a subject is not the policy of law. Adnan Ahmed vs Sakhawat & another 2018 SCR 1334 (A)
  292. —cancellation of—bail cannot be held as punishment—if ultimately the guilt of the accused is proved, he can be taken to the task—if he is ultimately acquitted then consensus is that there would be no compensation for curtailment of his liberty. Adnan Ahmed vs Sakhawat & another 2018 SCR 1334  (B)
  293. petitioners are behind the bars and have not been produced before any Court. The period for which the accused remained in custody without any remand order clearly comes within the purview of illegal detention. Prima facie, all this has been done due to the negligent and defective investigation on the part of the investigating team who tried to smash the case for the reasons known to them. It is also depicted from the record that even after lapse of a considerable time the police authorities have yet not been determined that which of the investigating agencies shall investigate into the guilt of the accused— The investigation yet to be commenced by concerned agency. The accused-petitioners could not be kept detained for indefinite time—the accused were enlarged on bail. Tariq Riaz Mughal vs State & others 2018 SCR 184  (A)
  294. —cancellation of—considerations for cancellation of bail are quite different than that of the grant of bail—once bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction the same cannot not be cancelled, especially when the same has been maintained by the revisional/appellate Court, except strong grounds are pointed out or bail granting order appears to be perverse, patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Muhammad Rashid vs Muhammad Israr & others 2018 SCR 397 (B)
  295. —cancellation of—tender age—offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of s. 497, Cr.P.C. — challan filed statements of six witnessesout of 10 recorded. The trial is likely to be concluded—accused not required for further probe and is of tender age— if sent behind bars, there is likelihood of his being adversely affected by the bad environment of the prison—accused already facing the agony of criminal trial, which is not less than some kind of a punishment for a person of his age—no misuseof concession of bail has been brought on record and no useful purpose can be achieved while recalling concession of bail. Muhammad Rashid vs Muhammad Israr & others 2018 SCR 397  (H)
  296. — Cancellation of—Offence under section 337 APC—deep appreciation of evidence cannot be made at bail stage— High Court has formed an ultimate opinion in the impugned judgment — –Held: It is settled principle of law that deep appreciation of evidence brought on the record cannot be made at bail stage because the same may prejudice the case of either the party at trial. In the present case, the learned High Court has formed an ultimate opinion in the impugned judgment that the medical report is not supporting the prosecution version, which may destroy the prosecution case. The question of delay has also been considered by the learned High Court which cannot be attended in depth at bail stage. Muhammad Zahoor vs Muhammad Rafique & another 2018 SCR 803  (A)
  297. —After rejecting the bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, a day after, the application for bail was again filed before the trial Court, which was accepted by the Trial Court without discussing any fresh ground for passing the order. Held:that on the same material, the trial Court could not extend theconcession of bail to the accused until and unless some fresh evidence is not brought on the record. Muhammad Zahoor vs Muhammad Rafique & another 2018 SCR 803 (B)
  298. —trial near to completion—bail cannot be refused mere on the ground that the trial is in progress or near to completion if the case of further inquiry is made out. Muhammad Nazir Mir vs The State & another 2018 SCR 1155  (C)
  299. —Cancellation of — Non-joining of the investigation proceedings despite summoning— case  of embezzlement of a huge amount from the public exchequer—non-joining of the investigation proceedings by the accused despite summoning by the investigating agency amounts to misuse of concession of bail and frustrate the legal proceedings which is a valid ground under law for recalling the bail granting order— Details show that the transactions of the embezzled amounts have been made in the accounts maintained by accused prima facie connect them with the commission of the offence—Held: in view of the nature of the case and the conduct of the accused, the cancellation of bail is justified. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Tariq Riaz Mughal 2019 SCR 133 (A)
  300. —Section 9(b) and (c), the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997—Determination of quantum of sentence at bail stage–categorization of sentence, presumption or exploratory exercise could not be made—Argument: Only quantity sent to Chemical Examiner can be counted for determination of liability or offence of accused— Case, therefore, falls under section 9(b) of the Act–Accused deserves bail on this ground—Held: argument has not force. Admittedly, the report of the Chemical Examiner and the other evidence is not available at this stage and in absence of that such argument cannot be considered as a valid ground for grant of bail. Sentence under section 9(c) is the penalty of death sentence or imprisonment. Neither categorization of sentence nor any presumption or exploratory exercise could be undertaken by the Court at bail stage, as same will amount to pre-empt the mind of the trial Court. Bail refused as offence fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C.             Ajaib Hussain v. The State 2019 SCR 485 (A)
  301. —sections 34, 324, 337 and 341, APC—Section 20, the Offences Against Property(Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985–principle for grant and cancellation  of bail—it may be observed here that under law in the bail matter deep scrutiny of the record is not permissible rather the Courts have to make tentative assessment of the statements recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C., allegation levelled in the FIR and the medical evidence, etc. and once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, for cancellation of same, strong and overwhelming circumstances are required. Muhammad Asgher v. Ansar-un-Nisa & another 2019 SCR 582 (A)  
  302. — Principle for grant of bail when the offence fall into prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C—argument: when offence falls into prohibitory clause, then refusal of bail is rule and grant is an exception. Held: it is settled principle of law that if from the entire evidence collected by the prosecution the Court comes to the conclusion that eh occurrence yet requires further inquiry, then the accused shall be released on bail. Bail granting order maintained.  Muhammad Asgher v. Ansar-un-Nisa & another 2019 SCR 582 (B) 2018 SCR 1155 rel
  303.  —section 10/19, ZHA, 1985—delay in lodging FIR—effect of— the complainant remained silent for a considerable time and lodged the FIR as a belated stage, for which no plausible explanation has been brought on the record. Although, in such like cases, delay is not always fatal for the prosecution, however, there must be some reasoning for not approaching the concerned investigating agency for initiating the legal proceedings.  Muhammad Fareed v. The State & another 2019 SCR 874 (A)
  304.  —section 10/19, ZHA, 1985—section 164 Cr. P.C–Commencement of trial— the commencement of trial does not debar to release an accused person on bail, if he is so entitled. The accused is behind the bars for more than four months and is not required for further investigation. In such scenario, no useful purpose shall be served while keeping the accused-petitioner in jail for indefinite time. The validity of the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., and the report of DNA/Medical report shall be determined by the trial Court, as this Court cannot wear the robe of the trial Court.  Muhammad Fareed v. The State & another 2019 SCR 874 (B)
  305.  —section 10/19, ZHA, 1985—bail—benefit of doubt–case of further inquiry—-it is settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt, even at bail stage, must be extended to the accused, as a matter of right. Muhammad Fareed v. The State & another 2019 SCR 874 (C)
  306.  —sections 302, 324, 337-F(3)(4), 341, 147, 148, 109, APC–section 13 of the Arms Act, 1965—old age of accused—grant of bail on the ground of old age is not a universal principle and bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right on such ground, however, the age factor can be taken into account as one of the relevant factors for grant of bail. Bail granted subject to furnishing of bail in the sum of Rs. Five Millions, keeping in view the old age of appellant No.1, his poor physique coupled with non-progression of trial. Subedar Retired Manzoor  Hussain & others v. Khursheed Ahmed & another  2019 SCR 880 (C)
  307.   —offences under sections 324, 337, 147, 148 and 149, APC.,—It is well settled law that the deep appreciation of evidence cannot be made out at bail stage because any opinion expressed on merit by this Court, while deciding the bail application may prejudice the case of either party at trial. Aamir Sagheer  v. The State & another  2019 SCR 950 (A)
  308.  —offences under sections 324, 337, 147, 148 and 149APC.,—statutory right of the accused—if a room for further inquiry is made out then the accused is entitled to release on bail–It is also the settled principle of law that the bail is statutory right of the accused—if a proper case is made out within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and then the Courts are duty bound to see the material collected by the police. If a room for further inquiry is made out, then the accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of further inquiry. Aamir Sagheer v. The State & another  2019 SCR 950 (B) ضما نت—          
  309.  —منسوخی—ضمان کا ناجائز استفاد ہ—الزا م کہ ملزمان ضمانت کا ناجائز فائدہ اٹھا تے ہوئے شہادت استغاثہ پر اثر اندا ز ہونے کے ساتھ ساتھ گواہان استغاثہ کو منحرف کر رہے ہیں ا ور و کیل استغاثہ کو پیروی مقدمہ کرنے پر دھمکی میں کسی حد تک صداقت ہوگی  لیک زبانی استدلال پر کوئی قرا ردا  دصادر نہ کی جاسکتی ہے۔ تاہم ابتدائی عدالت میں مقدمہ کی کارروائی کے دورا ن ملزمان کے طرزِ عمل کا بار یک بینی سے جائزہ لیا جائے تو یہ نتیجہ اخذ کرنے میں کوئی دشوا ری نہ ہے کہ ملزمان مقدمہ کی جلد یکسوئی عمل میں حائل ہو رہے ہیں۔ ملزمان کے متعدد پیشیوں پر عدالت میں حاضر ہونے کی بجائےذاتی حاضری سے استثنائی  کی نسبت درخواست بازی کے عمل کو اپنائے رکھا۔۔۔ قرا ر دیا  گیا محض گواہان پر اثر اندا ز ہونا ہی ضمان  کا ناجائز استعمال نہیں بلکہ ملزمان کا دانستہ حکمت عملی کے تحت مقدمہ کی بروقت یکسوئی ا ور اس کی پیش ر فت میں رکاوٹ بننا بھی ضمان کے ناجا ئزاستفاد ہکے ذمرہ میں آتا ہے۔ Shakeel Ahmed  v. Khanzada & others 2019 SCR 43 ( پ
  310.  —منسوخی ضمانت—ریکارڈ کا سرسری جائز ہ—فیصلہ زیر نزا عمیں فاضل شریعت ا پی لی   ٹ بینچ نے قانونی اصولوں کے نقیض ایسے نتائج مرتب کیے جوکہ قبل ا ز وقت ہونے کے ساتھ ساتھ مقدمہ   کےحتمی انفصال پر بھی اثر اندا ز ہو سکتے ہیں۔ ۔ مقتول کے جسم پر ۱۱ ضربات درج ہیں۔ ملزمان پر چ  شم دید گواہا ن کی موجودگی میں ضربات پہنچانے ا ور غرضِ مشترک رکھتے ہوئے مجمع غیر قانونی کے ا راکین ہونے کا الزا مہے  ‘تو ایسی صورت میں محض اس بناء پر کہ کسی ایک  ملزم سے مخصوص ضرب منسوب نہ ہے‘ ضمان  کی رعایت دینا درست معلوم نہ ہوتا ہے۔ ا ن وجوہات کے علاو ہ ملزمان اپنے طرزِ عمل کہ انہوں نے رعا  یتضمان کے بعد عدالت میں حاضری کو محض رسمی ا ور غیر ضروری سمجھا‘کی بناء پر بھی رعایت ضمان   کےحقدا رنہ ہیں۔ ملزمان  رعایت  ضمان و اپس لی جاتی ہے۔) Shakeel Ahmed  v. Khanzada & others 2019 SCR 43(  پ
  311.   منظوری/منسوخی کے لیئے موا د و شہادت کا سرسری جائز ہ— مقدمہ میں کہانی استغاثہ  کے مطاق چشم دید گواہان ملزم کی موجودگی ا ورآتشیں اسلحہ کے استعمال کا ذکر موجود ہے— مقتولین کے جسم  پر ضربات کی تصدیق پوسٹمارٹم رپورٹ و دیگر شہادت سے  ہوتی ہے۔ ۔ ۔ قرا ر دیا  گیا کہ عدالت ماتحت کی   یہقرا رداد کہ ملزم )ر(  سے ضرب پہنچانا منسوب نہ ہے —عدالت کی رائے میں قبل ا ز وقت ا ور شہادت  کا باریک بینی سے تجزیہ کرنے کے مترادف ہے ج کی ضمان کے مرحلہ پر اجازت نہ ہے۔ ) Shakeel Ahmed  v. Khanzada & others 2019 SCR 43 ( ا لف
  312. —deep appreciation of evidence cannot be made at bail stage—the Court is bound to make tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating agency and the documents submitted along with the challan etc. Waqas Habib v. Khalid Mehmood & another 2020 SCR 396 (A).
  313.  —rule of consistency—the only allegation levelled against the accused is of reloading the pistol and handing over the same to the chief accused which requires further inquiry within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Those who have been ascribed the role of indiscriminate firing have been released on bail by the learned trial Court—the role ascribed to the accused, is not different, hence, rule of consistency was applicable in his case and he was also entitled to the concession of bail. Waqas Habib v. Khalid Mehmood & another 2020 SCR 396) (D)
  314.                 —grant/rejection of—at bail stage only the tentative assessment of the evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation of the evidence is not allowed— Abdul Shakoor & another V. State through AdvocateGeneral & 2 others 2020 SCR 604 (A).
  315.  —grant of—FIR silent about the number of shots—also does not disclose that fire has been repeated—medical report speaks about the four shots on right leg and two on left leg–accused are behind bars since three months—investigation is completed and challan is submitted in the court—accused no more required for any investigation—bail cannot be withheld as punishment— Abdul Shakoor & another V. State through AdvocateGeneral & 2 others 2020 SCR 604 (B).
  316.  —Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., 1898—Sections 467, 468, 470, 109, APC,1860, sections 5(1) (d), 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, section 9, 10 & 11, AJK Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001— principle for grant of bail—prima facie involvement and tentative assessment are requisites—deep appreciation and artificial reasons cannot be out for grant of bail—Held: The law is settled that the deep appreciation of the evidence cannot be made while deciding the bail application. The Court has only to make the tentative assessment of the record collected by the investigation agency and form an opinion about the prima facie involvement of an accused or otherwise, if after forming the opinion, the Court is of the view that the case of further inquiry under sub section 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C., is made out, then an accused can be enlarged on ball pending the trial, otherwise, artificial reason for further inquiry cannot be dig out if an accused is fully linked with the commission of the offence with which he is charged. Abdul Waheed Khan V. Ehtesab Bureau 2020 SCR 622 (A)
  317. —Grant of—no one can be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period, if the case is proved against accused, then he will be convicted but if he is acquitted of the charge then he cannot be compensated for the agony he suffered during the period he spent behind the bars. Rasham Din Versus State & another 2021 SCR 180 (A)
  318. —Grant of—further inquiry—if from the tentative assessment of record, it can be ascertained that the accused has committed an offence punishable with death or transportation of life, then of course, the concession of bail shall not be extended—if Court reaches the conclusion that the occurrence yet requires further inquiry, then the accused shall be released on bail. Rasham Din Versus State & another 2021 SCR 180 (B) 2015 SCR 1349 rel. 
  319. —Grant of—mere on the ground that the trial is in progress or near to completion the bail cannot be withheld. Rasham Din Versus State & another 2021 SCR 180 (D)
  320. —Pre-arrest bail before Appellate Court—under law after cancellation of bail the appellant should have surrendered before the police and thereafter, he could file appeal—relief can only be granted to an accused, who at first surrenders himself before the police. Muhammad Ayub Versus Manzoor Khan & 6 others 2021 SCR 189 (A, B & C) 2002 SCR 544 rel.
  321. —Cancellation of— once the bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then some very strong grounds are required to justify the cancellation of the same—if Court comes to the conclusion that bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice then Supreme Court has ample powers to recall the same even during the pendency of the trial. Rukhsana Zaffar v. Muhammad Yousaf & others 2022 SCR 49 (A)
  322.  —Cancellation of—APC—Section 322—the benefit of S.169 Cr.P.C, extended to co-accused—the investigation completed and accused is no more required to the police—punishment provided for offence u/s 322, APC, is payment of diyat— challan has been presented in and trial is in progress — no allegation against accused for misuse of concession of bail, thus, sending the accused behind the bars will serve no useful purpose. Rukhsana Zaffar v. Muhammad Yousaf & others 2022 SCR 49 (B)
  323. —Cancellation of— bail cannot be withheld for an indefinite period as a punishment— challan presented and the trial in progress— at this stage cancellation of bail would not serve any useful purpose. Parveen Akhtar Chaudhary v. Rifat Rani & others  2022 SCR 714 (C)
  324. —Grant of bail—principle—deeper appreciation of evidence not permissible—Held: at bail stage the deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible rather the Court has to form the opinion on the basis of allegation levelled in the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the medical report. Zahid Mehmood v. The State and others  2022 SCR 1362 (B)
  325. —Bail—grant of—on statutory ground—contention accused behind bars for two years—bail cannot be granted on this ground as a matter of right. Zahid Mehmood v. The State and others  2022 SCR 1362 (C)
  326. — misuse of — bail granted by the High Court — after grant of bail accused proceeded abroad – Held: if travelling of accused to abroad was necessary then he should have moved the Court for permission — proper course not adopted, prima facie the accused is fugitive from law — accused misused the concession of bail and not entitled to any relief — bail recalled. Tasleem Zaheen v. Muhammad Najeeb & another 2023 SCR 103 (A)  2007 SCR 138 ref.
  327. — grant of bail — principle — deeper appreciation of evidence and other material not warranted — Held: while dealing with bail matters the Courts are not supposed to make deeper appreciation and examination of the evidence and other material collected by the investigating agency; the Court has also to avoid to conduct the preliminary trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Courts for the purpose of granting or refusing bail has to look the material so collected by the investigating agency and available on record and satisfied that there is or not prima-facie reliable evidence available for believing that the accused has committed the alleged offence or not. Khaqan v. State through Advocate General 2023 SCR 428 (A)
  328. — grant of bail — discretion of Court — Supreme Court interfere only in exception cases, where discretion is exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or contrary to the settled principle of law — Held: It has been the practice of this Court not to interfere in bail matters ordinarily leaving them to the discretion of the Court in quailing the guilt of the accused. Only in exceptional cases where discretion has been found to have been exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or contrary to the settled principle of law, this Court does not hesitate to interfere in the wrong exercise of discretion in the interest of justice. Khaqan v. State through Advocate General 2023 SCR 428 (B)
  329. — grant of bail — principle — determination of legality of recovery — it would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence — only tentative assessment is required — Held: it is a matter of deep appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible under law at bail stage and any comment passed or opinion formed at bail stage regarding deeper appreciation of evidence may result in prejudicing the case in reaching a just conclusion which is against the norms of justice. While deciding the bail application, only tentative assessment of the record and evidence is required. Khaqan v. State through Advocate General 2023 SCR 428 (D) 2013 YLR 2560 Rel
  330. — cancellation of — once bail is granted to an accused by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there must be overwhelming circumstances to cancel the same Rukhsana Kausar versus Abdul Raheem & another 2023 SCR 684 (B)
  331. — grant of — the benefit of slightest doubt arising in the case must be extended in favor of accused even at bail stage. Rukhsana Kausar versus Abdul Raheem & another 2023 SCR 684 (A)
  332. — grant/rejection of — principles —- Supreme Court does not interfere with an order passed by High Court granting or rejecting bail to an accused — However, it is equally incumbent upon the Courts to exercise its discretion judiciously, and strictly in compliance of basic principles laid down by Supreme Court — the determination, whether a case is fit for grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which, the nature of offence, the severity of punishment and prima-facie involvement of accused — No straightjacket formula exists for Courts to assess an application for grant/rejection of bail — Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record — Ahmed Basharat versus State & another 2023 SCR 1026 (A)
  333.  — grant of — bail sought on the ground that an eye witness that the accused appellant & other co-accused were not present at the place of occurrence — PW, deposed that accused actively participated the commission of offence — held; at this stage, on the basis of a portion of the statement of an eye witness, no presumption of innocence/guilt of accused can be made rather only a cursory approach has to be followed— Ahmed Basharat versus State & another 2023 SCR 1026 (B)
  334. — grant/rejection of — the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and facts — the nature of offence is one of the basic consideration. For grant/rejection of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though dependent on the factual matrix of each case — Supreme Court does not normally interfere in the bail matters leaving room to the discretion of the Court of competent jurisdiction — only in exceptional cases, where it is found that the competent Court has arbitrary exercise its discretion, Supreme Court comes in the way and recall the said order. Ahmed Basharat versus State & another 2023 SCR 1026 (D)
  335. — grant of — at bail stage, the FIR, medico-legal report, recoveries and other relevant material is looked in by the Court — any opinion framed at bail stage is tentative in nature and is meant only for the question of bail. Dilawar Siddique vs The State & others 2024 SCR 68 (A)
error: Content is protected !!