— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 201, 202 & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention — Bail, grant of — Scope — Daughter of the complainant went missing, the matter was reported to the police, and it was stated by the complainant that she had been done to death by her husband’s brother and his son (the petitioner) — Complainant party, inter alia, argued that there was an important circumstantial evidence in the form of a confessional statement under section 164, CrPC, of petitioner’s father, in which he had admitted his guilt of committing the murder and had also disclosed the location of the deceased’s body — However, it was observed that in the statement under section 164, CrPC, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in any context — There was no other circumstantial evidence available on the record against the petitioner except for an application filed by the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence — In that eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further enquiry falling under sub-section (2) of section 497 CrPC — Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed — The petitioner was enlarged on bail. [2024 SCLR 39 = 2024 SCMR 20]

— Bail — Scope — The paramount factors which require consideration while granting pre-arrest bail are whether the arrest will cause humiliation and/or unwarranted persecution or harassment to the applicant for some ulterior motives; or that the prosecution is motivated by malice to perpetrate irreparable injury to the reputation and liberty of the accused — While considering the grounds agitated for enlargement on bail, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest, the atrociousness, viciousness and/or gravity of the offence are not, by themselves, sufficient for the rejection of bail where the nature of the evidence produced in support of the indictment creates some doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case — Therefore, where, on a tentative assessment, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, and the prosecution case appears to require further inquiry, then in such circumstances the benefit of bail may not be withheld as a punishment to the accused — The Court must dwell on all interconnected rudiments, including the gravity of the offence and the degree of involvement of the applicant/accused for bail in the commission of offence, together with the likelihood of absconding or repeating the offence and/or obstructing or hindering the course of justice, or any reasonable apprehension of extending threats to the complainant or witnesses or winning over the prosecution witnesses. [2024 SCLR 38 = 2024 SCMR 14] 

— Bail — Further inquiry — Reasonable grounds — Scope — The doctrine of “further inquiry” refers to a notional and exploratory assessment that may create doubt regarding the involvement of the accused in the crime — The expression “reasonable grounds” as contained under section 497, CrPC, obligates the prosecution to unveil sufficient material or evidence to divulge that the accused has committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, CrPC — However, for seeking the concession of bail, the accused person has to show that the evidence collected against him during the investigation gives rise to clear-headed suspicions regarding his involvement — While deciding bail applications, it is the elementary duty of the courts to apply a judicious mind tentatively to reach a just and proper conclusion on whether reasonable grounds are made out to enlarge the accused on bail — The axiom “reasonable grounds” connotes and associates those grounds that are legally acceptable and based on reasons that attract the judicial mind, as opposed to being imaginative, fallacious and/or presumptuous. [2024 SCLR 38 = 2024 SCMR 14]

— Bail — Second bail application — Scope — A second bail petition repeating the same grounds that were earlier taken is not competent — Moreover, the grounds raised by an accused in a subsequent bail application which were available at the time of filing of the earlier petition could also not be treated as fresh grounds nor urged for the purposes of seeking the same relief. [2024 SCLR 5 = 2023 SCP 376 = 2024 SCMR 28]

— Bail — Second bail application — Scope — If the ground on which bail has been sought subsists when a bail petition is withdrawn then such a ground can also not be taken again — However, the exception to this rule is in the case of entitlement of bail on statutory grounds. [2024 SCLR 5 = 2023 SCP 376 = 2024 SCMR 28]

— Bail — Delay in conclusion of trial — Scope — If any act or omission of the accused has hindered the conclusion of trial within the period specified in the third proviso of section 497 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1868 (‘Cr.P.C.’) then a right, as contemplated thereunder, will not accrue in the latter’s favour and, therefore, he or she, as the case may be, would not become entitled to be released on bail on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of the trial — Nonetheless, if after the rejection of the plea of bail on statutory grounds, the accused has subsequently corrected himself/herself and has abstained from doing any act or omission in the following period specified under the third proviso, then a fresh ground would accrue to the accused to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for grant of bail — The third proviso to section 497 (1) of Cr.P.C. would thus become operative as and when the period specified therein has expired but the trial has not concluded without any fault on part of the accused. [2024 SCLR 5 = 2023 SCP 376 = 2024 SCMR 28]

— Bail — Delay in conclusion of trial — Scope — The accused cannot be made liable for the acts or omissions of a co-accused regardless of the relationship, except when the prosecution can clearly show, based on undisputed facts that the accused seeking bail was complicit — The latter’s acts and omissions, or those of a person acting on his behalf, are crucial and could be considered for the court to determine the right to be released on bail on the ground described under the third proviso — The latter’s acts and omissions, or those of a person acting on his behalf, are crucial and could be considered for the court to determine the right to be released on bail on the ground described under the third proviso. [2024 SCLR 5 = 2023 SCP 376 = 2024 SCMR 28]

— Bail — Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial — Scope — The object of recognition of a right to be released on bail on statutory ground, subject to meeting the conditions described under the third and fourth provisos of section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that criminal trials are not unnecessarily delayed and that the prosecution is not enabled to prolong the incarceration or hardship of an accused awaiting trial — The right of an accused to seek bail on statutory grounds cannot be defeated for any other reason except on the ground as has been explicitly described under the third and fourth provisos to section 497(1) of Cr.P.C — The accused becomes entitled to bail as of right after the statutory period expressly stated in clauses (a) and (b), as the case may be, have expired and the trial has not concluded — This accrual of right is manifest from the language of the third proviso — Such a right can only be defeated if the prosecution is able to show that the delay in the trial was attributable to an act or omission of the accused or a person acting on his behalf — If the prosecution succeeds in showing to the satisfaction of the court that the accused was at fault then the right stands forfeited — It has been held by this Court that the right recognized under the third proviso of section 497(1) cannot be denied to an accused on the basis of discretionary powers of the court to grant bail — The right has not been left to the discretion of the court, rather, its accrual is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned under the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C — Moreover, while calculating the quantum of delay attributable to an accused, the court is required to consider whether or not the progress and conclusion of the trial was in any manner delayed by the act and omission on the part of the accused — While ascertaining the delay, the cumulative effect in disposal of the case has to be considered and its assessment cannot be determined on the basis of mathematical calculations by excluding those dates for which adjournments had been sought by the accused or the latter’s counsel — The main factor for consideration is the attendance of the witnesses and whether, despite the matter having become ripe for the recording of evidence, whether the delay was caused by the defence — The recording of the statement of a last witness would also not defeat the right recognized under the third proviso and it would be unreasonable to conclude that the trial has been completed. [2024 SCLR 5 = 2023 SCP 376 = 2024 SCMR 28]

— Presence of Investigating Officer while hearing bail application is not necessary — Scope — Supreme Court depreciated the practice of appearance of Investigating Officers before the court by holding that rather than attending to the matter (i.e. investigation) with the seriousness that it deserves two police officers, who are investigating the crime travelled from Peshawar to bring documents which could have been e-mailed, faxed or sent by Whatsapp, and then the relevant documents could have been filed, which would have been useful in determining the outcome of the bail application. [PLR 2024 SC 5 = PLD 2024 SC 73 = 2023 SCP 356]

— Dishonestly issuing a cheque — Bail, grant of — Scope — Accused sought post-arrest bail in an FIR — As per the contents of the crime report, the accused and the complainant had business relations — The complainant gave a certain amount to the petitioner for doing business on the pretext that whatever profit he will earn, he will share half of the same with the complainant — Allegedly, the accused earned a profit and gave three cheques to the complainant for the amount but they were dishonoured on presentation to the Bank — However, stance of the accused was that the cheques were not issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation and the same were issued in respect of the joint business — Admittedly, the accused and the complainant were in business relations — In this view of the matter, the question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of Section 489-F, PPC is a question, which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence — The accused was behind the bars for the last about five months — Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under Section 489-F, PPC was three years and the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, CrPC — All the material was in documentary shape; the investigation was complete and the accused was no more required for further investigation — Case of the accused squarely fell within the ambit of Section 497(2), CrPC entitling for further inquiry into his guilt — Accused was admitted to bail. [2023 SCLR 71 = 2023 SCMR 2122 = 2023 SCP 249]

— Transportation of narcotics — Aiding, abetting or association in narcotic offences — Bail, refusal of — Scope — Accused sought bail after arrest — A police blockade had intercepted a car based on intelligence indicating a potential narcotics smuggling operation from Peshawar to Punjab via the motorway — The accused had been found in the front seat, with the co-accused driving, and a substantial amount of charas, heroin, and methamphetamine had been concealed in the vehicle — Forensic testing had confirmed the presence of narcotics — Despite the accused person’s claims of lack of awareness and police malice, no evidence supporting these assertions had been presented — The High Court had considered the joint involvement of the accused and the driver, both having belonged to the Pak Army and having been stationed together — Given the serious nature of the drug-related offence, the court had found prima facie evidence linking the accused to the crime under Section 497 CrPC — Petition for grant of bail was dismissed. [2023 SCLR 59 = 2023 SCMR 2056 = 2023 SCP 251]