| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1849 2026 SLD 1849 = 2026 SCMR 766 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl.P.L.A. No. 67-P of 2025, decided on 13th May, 2025. (On appeal against the order/judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.M. B.A. No. 349-P of 2025).
Presented By: Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
Shan Asghar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (Through Video Link Peshawar). Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Dilawar Shah, Inspector and Ijaz, ASI for the State. Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2 (Through Video Link Peshawar). Date of hearing: 13th May, 2025.
Crl.P.L.A. No. 67-P of 2025, decided on 13th May, 2025. (On appeal against the order/judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.M. B.A. No. 349-P of 2025).
Presented By: Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
Shan Asghar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (Through Video Link Peshawar). Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Dilawar Shah, Inspector and Ijaz, ASI for the State. Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2 (Through Video Link Peshawar). Date of hearing: 13th May, 2025.
WAJID UR REHMAN ---Petitioner
VERSUS
LATIF UR REHMAN and others ---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(2)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 392, 411
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411---Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry--Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with his coaccused trespassed into the house of complainant and committed robbery and took away Rs. 27,00,000/- in cash, some foreign currency, gold ornaments, three laptop, etc---Petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2024, however, he was nominated by the complainant on 28.11.2024---Record showed that no identification parade was arranged for---No plausible explanation had been given by complainant as to why the identification parade was not arranged for when in the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the inmates of the house could identify the culprits if brought before them---High Court declined the bail on the ground that the statement of some jewellers was recorded who claimed that the petitioner and the other co-accused had sold gold ornaments to them but surprisingly said jewellers had received stolen articles but were not made accused in this case for offence under Section 411, P.P.C.---Record showed that one USB was given to the Police Officer showing CCTV footage but surprisingly even the said footage was not shown to the complainant and the eye-witnesses to identify the persons mentioned in the said video footage---It was alleged by complainant that two other FIRs had been registered against the petitioner but in the said FIRs unknown persons were shown to be robbers and the petitioner had not been convicted in any case---In such eventuality, the case of the petitioner called for further inquiry falling under Subsection (2) of Section 497,Cr.P.C.---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances, and petitioner was enlarged on bail. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and have no bearing upon any subsequent proceedings before the Trial Court. ORDER SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---Post-arrest bail was declined to the petitioner by the High Curt through impugned order dated…