2026 P Cr. L J 7

 2026 P Cr. L J 7

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J

SUNNY HAKIM---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Misc. No. 33508-B of 2025, decided on 10th July, 2025

(a) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,

Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)---

----S.10(2)---Prosecutor---Disciplinary proceedings---Pre-condition---

Prosecutor who does not apply his independent mind while taking

prosecutorial decisions or giving opinions exposes himself to a legal

action by Prosecutor General under S.10(2) of Punjab Criminal

Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006

which again regards the prosecutors as public servants--- Provision

of S.10 (2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,

Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 reinforces independence of

criminal prosecution service that until Prosecutor General

recommends, no authority in government can take action against

prosecutors.

(b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,

Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)---

----S. 17--- Code of Conduct for Prosecutors (Punjab) 2016, para 5.12--

-Public interest---Scope--- Para 5.12 of Code of Conduct for

Prosecutors issued in 2016 by Prosecutor General Punjab lays down

following factors of public interest which must be kept in mind by

prosecutors while applying public interest test;

a) How serious is the offence?

b) Extent of culpability of offender.

c) Circumstances of victim.

d) Age and circumstances of offender.

e) Impact of offence on community.

f) Remorse shown by offender or actions taken by him to undo the

wrong.

g) Is prosecution a proportionate response?(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

---- S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394 & 411--- Robbery and

recovery of stolen property--- Bail, grant of--- Delay in conclusion of

trial---Trial Court framed charge on 29-04-2025 and prosecution was

responsible for causing delay in conclusion of trial--- Accused had

been behind the bars since 18-07-2023 and had already completed

his statutory period of one year--- Accused made out a case for bail

not only on merits but on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of

trial as well--- There was no likelihood of conclusion of trial of

accused in near future--- Relief on the basis of such right so accrued

in favour of accused could not be refused to him unless he was

found to be hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, a previous

convict for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for

life or accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, but no such exception was found against

accused--- Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Javid Khan v. Arshad Khan and another PLD 2024 SC 73; Riaz Hanif

Rahi and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others

PLD 2008 SC 587; Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh,

Sindh Secretariat and another v. Prosecutor-General Sindh, Criminal

Prosecution Department and others 2012 SCMR 307; The Public

Interest we know it s Important, But Do We Know What it Means by

Chris Wheeler. 3; The Public Interest: Its Meaning in Democracy by

Anthony Downs; Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and

others PLD 2004 SC 482 and Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal and 21 others v.

Province of Punjab through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs

and others PLD 2024 Lah. 12 ref.

Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934; Akhtar v. Khawas

Khan and another 2024 SCMR 476; Shakeel Shah v. The State and

others 2022 SCMR 1 and Nadeem Samson v. The State and others PLD

2022 SC 112 rel.

Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad for Petitioner.

Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ijaz, ASI for the

State.

Complainant in person.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.---Through this petition under

Section 497 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR bearing

No.1684 dated 26.06.2023 registered under Sections 394/411-P.P.C at

Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore.  2. Earlier on the day when the police file was placed before learned

Deputy Prosecutor General, she was attempting to collect the facts

haphazardly to respond to the queries of this Court due to which much

precious time of this Court went into waste. She responded that the

record of the case has just been tabled before her in the Court, which

irked the Court to call for Prosecutor General, Punjab to appear and

respond as to why direction of Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case

reported as Javid Khan v. Arshad Khan and another (PLD 2024 SC 73) is

not being complied with. On his appearance, he was apprised of the

facts that in above judgment, Supreme Court of Pakistan has

categorically observed that:

A practice has also developed whereby despite prior notice to the

State preparation of the case is done before the Court, rendering

this Court into an office of the prosecution. Rather than

attending to the matter 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 this bail application

The learned Prosecutor General, Punjab was further apprised that

as per preamble of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service

(Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, (the CPS Act ) an

independent, effective and efficient service for prosecution of criminal

cases, to ensure prosecutorial independence, for better coordination in

the criminal justice system of the province and matters incidental

thereto, was established and being maintained by the Government

under the said Act

[1]

which consists upon Prosecutor General,

Additional Prosecutor General, Deputy Prosecutor General, District

Public Prosecutor, Deputy District Public Prosecutor and Assistant

District Public Prosecutor,

[2]

and none else, which is headed by the

Prosecutor General and its administration vest in him

[3]

with no

intervention whatsoever from any other corner except a liaison with

Attorney General of Pakistan and the Advocate General of Punjab, only

in cases which are pending in the Courts as a common cause.

[4]

Thus,

the CPS Act being a complete statute gives the Prosecutor General

powers to issue guidelines under its section 10 (1) to prosecutors and

officers responsible for investigation for effective and efficient

prosecution. Of course, such guidelines must be in accordance with the

particular policy of government if framed for prosecution of certain

offences because government exercises superintendence over the criminal prosecution service but in prosecutorial decision making,

criminal prosecution service is wholly independent for the reason that

the prosecutors are not the civil servants rather being members of

service, having an indemnity to their acts done in good faith, are

cloaked as public servants (see Ss. 16 and 18 of the CPS Act), so that for

any derelictions in their prosecutorial work they could be held

responsible.

3. Section 16 of the CPS Act enunciates that subject to the

provisions of this Act and rules, members of the Service, including

the staff, shall be appointed and governed under the Punjab Civil

Servants Act, 1974 and rules made thereunder. Thus, applicability is

conditional to the provisions of CPS Act which outline a clear

criterion for appointment of Prosecutor General on contract as per

section-6 and of all other prosecutors under section 8 either by initial

recruitment through Punjab public service commission or by

promotion or by transfer as prescribed, and prescribed means as per

CPS Act, prescribed by rules which has not been made so far. Section

20 of the CPS Act also gives an overriding effect to Sections 8, 9, 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the CPS Act on all other laws; it

therefore, gives air to a connotation that Punjab Civil Servants Act

1974 was not made applicable upon the members of service to give

them a status of civil servants rather its applicability is for

multifarious purposes like pay, pension, leave, and other fringe

benefits which are applied in case of every person working with the

affairs of the province. Thus, until the rules are framed under the CPS

Act, the application of the Punjab Civil Servants Act and rules made

thereunder would remain operative for the cited purposes. It is trite

that if any person is directed to be governed by the Punjab Civil

Servants Act 1974, it does not ipso facto make him civil servant if his

service is also regulated under any special statute or rules. One of the

instances in this respect could be of District Judiciary which is also

governed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 for the purpose of

pay, leave and pension etc., subject to the Punjab Judicial Service

Rules 1994, but still they are not regarded as civil servants. Last but

not the least Punjab Bar Council does not suspend the practicing

license of an advocate who joins the criminal prosecution service or

is appointed as law officer in office of Advocate General Punjab or

Attorney General of Pakistan so as to permit them to appear before

the High Courts or the Supreme Court on behalf of government as a

legal counsel. This command of law is incorporated in Section 11 of

the CPS Act as well, which is as under;

Conduct of prosecution before Superior Courts. (1) Without

prejudice to the powers conferred under any law on the office of

the Attorney General of Pakistan and the Advocate General, the Prosecutor General and the Additional Prosecutor General may

depute any Prosecutor, otherwise qualified, for conducting

prosecution before the Supreme Court, the High Court or the

Federal Shariat Court.

Above section shows that besides being prosecutor he must be

otherwise qualified which connotes to hold a valid practicing licence

for his eligibility to appear before the Superior Courts. This aspect was

also attended by the Supreme Court of Pakistan while granting

permissions to the prosecutors to contest for the post of Additional

Sessions Judge being eligible candidates. Reliance in this respect is

placed on case reported as Riaz Hanif Rahi and others v. Registrar,

Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (PLD 2008 SC 587). Nonetheless

the Supreme Court of Pakistan has already authoritatively held in a

case reported as Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh,

Sindh Secretariat and another v. Prosecutor-General Sindh, Criminal

Prosecution Department and others (2012 SCMR 307) that prosecutors

are not the civil servants rather public servants so as to take

prosecutorial decisions independently free from government

pressures for which a need for establishment of independent criminal

prosecution service was felt, otherwise prosecution affairs were being

regulated by the Government of the Punjab, Law and Parliamentary

Affairs Department through the operation of Law Department Manual

1938, a Manual still applicable on the office of Advocate General

Punjab.

4. The Code of Conduct for Prosecutors issued in year 2016 by the

Prosecutor General Punjab under Section 17 of the CPS Act also

ensures independence of prosecutors through following paragraphs;

3.4 Prosecutors must perform their duties in an open and fair

manner and not let their personal views regarding race,

ethnicity, religion, sect, gender, age, national origin, political

affiliation, social status and/or education influence their

decisions. Similarly, Prosecutors must not be affected by

improper or undue pressure from any source.

4.13 A prosecutor cannot be directed to take a decision with a pre-

determined outcome

The above directions of Prosecutor General clearly demand that

prosecutors shall work fearlessly by taking independent decisions or

giving opinions for prosecution of criminal cases, better coordination

in criminal justice system of the province and matters ancillary

thereto; therefore, they cannot be directed by any authority to take a

pre-determined outcome. Thus, a prosecutor who does not apply his

independent mind while taking prosecutorial decisions or giving opinions exposes himself to a legal action by the Prosecutor General

under section 10 (2) of the CPS Act which again regards the

prosecutors as public servants. The Section is reproduced;

(2) The Prosecutor General or the District Public Prosecutor may,

refer to the authority, competent to initiate disciplinary

proceedings under any law for the time being in force, to take

disciplinary action against any public servant working in

connection with investigation or prosecution, for any act

committed by him and is prejudicial to the prosecution.

(Emphasis supplied)

The above subsection reinforces the independence of criminal

prosecution service that until the Prosecutor General recommends, no

authority in government can take action against the prosecutors.

5. The learned Prosecutor General was ultimately asked when the

criminal prosecution service is independent in all respect what

restricts him to issue guidelines under section 10(1) of the CPS Act to

the prosecutors and the investigators to follow command and dictates

of Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan; he responded that he is already

working on such issue and in this respect certain guidelines are also in

place. He submitted report which shows that Guidelines issued on

29.04.2025 through letter No. S-PRSQN/PGP/Circulation/2024-288-3676

were to the following effects:

i. Investigation officer should attend and produce record of the case

during criminal proceedings i.e. bails etc. before Hon ble High

Courts.

ii. Previous history and record of conviction of the accused should

be taken from the concerned quarters i.e. CRO branch or PSRMS

during the course of investigation and the same be placed on

record to assist the Prosecutors during bail and other criminal

proceedings before Hon ble High Court and also attach previous

record with reports under section 173 Cr.P.C.

iii. Investigation officers are under statutory duty to prepare brief of

the case in accordance with the Rule 27.4, Police Rule 1934 for

the assistance of Public Prosecutors before the Hon ble High

Courts which include previous record of conviction along with

proof of previous conviction.

Above guidelines were addressed to Inspector General of Police,

Punjab, Lahore for compliance. Later by virtue of letter No. S-PRSQN /

PGP/ Misc /7-9 /2025 /6658-A, dated 04.07.2025, Inspector General of

Police, Punjab, Lahore was apprised by the Prosecutor General that guidelines issued on 29.04.2025 are not being complied with in letter

and spirit.

6. It has been observed that specific directions with respect to use of

WhatsApp for obtaining relevant record from the police department

has not been issued by the Prosecutor General, Punjab through said

guidelines, therefore, the Prosecutor General, Punjab later on the day

submitted a letter No. JCM/ PGP/ 65/ 2025 dated 10.07.2025 through Dr.

Usman Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab containing a direction to the

Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore that all the DPOs may be

directed to submit detailed fact sheet/ progress report to concerned

prosecutor at least one day prior to hearing of case via WhatsApp or

any other approved electronic communication platform. It is expected

that the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore shall pass

direction to all concerned that a day prior to the fixation of case, facts

and relevant developments in investigation through a fact sheet shall

be communicated to the concerned Prosecutor and police officer shall

also have liaison with the Prosecutor to respond to any query in this

respect. The Prosecutor General is directed to issue administrative

direction to the concerned staff of his office that while communicating

the date of case to the police they shall obtain the WhatsApp numbers

of police officers/officials who are expected to produce the record in

the Court, and such numbers shall be shared with the concerned

prosecutors, who are directed to keep a close liaison with said police

officers for furnishing fact sheet or any required response to the

queries raised by them while reading the case files. Like direction be

also issued by the Prosecutor General to the concerned prosecutors, so

as to make the mechanism effective and a ground for disciplinary

action in case of any dereliction.

7. Under Section 10(3)(c) of the CPS Act, Prosecutor is authorized to

call for record or any other document within a specified time from a

law enforcement agency and if necessary, from any other Government

department or agency as may be necessary for the purposes of

prosecution. Thus, combined reading of above subsection and Rule

27.4 of Police Rules 1934 relating to police brief gives authority to

prosecutors to call for brief fact sheet of the cases prior in time.

Practice of obtaining fact sheet, prior in time, will help the prosecutors

to prepare their cases well before the fixation date, and on the day

when the case is taken up, they could simply verify such facts from the

original record of police so as to save precious time of the Court and

also to put an effective say in favour of either of the parties because

their legal mandate requires that they shall perform their functions

and exercise their powers fairly, honestly with due diligence and in

the public interest and to uphold justice as mentioned in Section 13 (9)

(a) of the CPS Act. The word shall used in above subsection makes it mandatory for them to act accordingly. Any violation thereof can hold

them responsible for disciplinary action under section 10(2) of the CPS

Act.

8. The mandate of above subsection requires the prosecutors to

exercise their powers in public interest, and this vague term attracted

the attention of this Court to be focused for a clarity what it actually is;

therefore, a brief attempt is being made to dig out the requirement of

public interest though through a cumbersome exercise of reading a

plenty of material which was mainly extracted from; i) The fact sheet

developed by the NSW Ombudsman (Integrity Commission Tasmania),

2) An article on The Public Interest We Know It s Important, But Do We

Know What It Means by Chris Wheeler. 3) Article published by The

Johns Hopkins University Press The Public Interest: Its Meaning In

Democracy by Anthony Downs.

9. The public interest has been described as referring to

considerations affecting the good order and functioning of the

community and government affairs for the wellbeing of citizens. It has

also been described as the benefit of society, the public or the

community as a whole. The public interest would consist of those

government actions that most benefited the whole society. It is

important to draw a distinction between the question and its

application between what is the public interest, and what is in the

public interest in any particular circumstance. Although the term is a

central concept to a democratic system of government, it has never

been definitively defined either in academics, legislation or by the

courts. While there has been no clear interpretation, there has been

general agreement in most societies that the concept is valid and

embodies a fundamental principle that should guide and inform the

actions of public officials.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS University Press published an article THE

PUBLIC INTEREST: ITS MEANING IN DEMOCRACY written by

ANTHONY DOWNS which shows that there is no exact definition of

public interest , acceptable to all. Writer deliberates the term public

interest in following expression;

The term public interest is constantly used by politicians, lobbyists,

political theorists, and voters, but any detailed inquiry about its

exact meaning plunges the inquirer into a welter of platitudes,

generalities, and philosophic arguments. It soon becomes

apparent that no general agreement exists about whether the

term has any meaning at all, or, if it has, what the meaning is,

which specifications are in the public interest and which are

not, and how to distinguish between them. In the face of this

confusion why the term so often used? The answer can be found by distinguishing between the meaning of a concept and its

functions. Many a significant concept is extremely hard to define

in such a way that a large number of its users would agree on

the definition. One reason it is so hard to define terms like love,

justice and power is that they refer to realities so fundamental

and all pervasive in our lives that we cannot encompass them in

few words Yet everyone who uses such a concept has a notion of

what it means, and employs that notion to order the events he

encounters and to communicate his thoughts to others. The

concept of public interest falls in this category. Nevertheless, it

serves important functions in social life.

10. The term public interest somehow was attempted to be defined

by the Academics, Legislatures and the Courts. In its 1979 report on the

then draft Commonwealth Freedom of Information Bill, the Australian

Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs described the

public interest as,

a convenient and useful concept for aggregating any number of

interests that may bear upon a disputed question that is of

general as opposed to merely private concern .

The Committee also said that the:

public interest is a phase that does not need to be, indeed could not

usefully, be defined... . Yet it is a useful concept because it

provides a balancing test by which any number of relevant

interests may be weighed one against another. the relevant

public interest factors may vary from case to case or in the oft

quoted dictum of Lord Hailsham of Marylebone the categories of

the public interest are not closed .

The meaning of the term has been looked at by the Australian courts

in various contexts. In one case the Supreme Court of Victoria said:

The public interest is a term embracing matters, among others, of

standards of human conduct and of the functioning of

government and government instrumentalities tacitly accepted

and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the

wellbeing of its members. The interest is therefore the interest

of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual or

individuals

In another case the Federal Court of Australia said:

9. The expression in the public interest directs attention to that

conclusion or determination which best serves the advancement

of the interest or welfare of the public, society or the nation and

its content will depend on each particular set of circumstances 10. The expression the public interest is often used in the sense of a

consideration to be balanced against private interests or in

contradistinction to the notion of individual interest. It is

sometimes used as a sole criterion that is required to be taken

into account as the basis for making a determination. In other

instances, it appears in the form of a list of considerations to be

taken into account as factors for evaluation when making a

determination...

11. The indeterminate nature of the concept of the public interest

means that the relevant aspects or facets of the public interest

must be sought by reference to the instrument that prescribes

the public interest as a criterion for making a determination

The dilemma faced by those trying to define the public interest was

summed up in another case in the following few words:

The public interest is a concept of wide meaning and not readily

limited by precise boundaries. Opinions have differed, do differ

and doubtless always will differ as to what is or is not in the

public interest.

The term was referred to in the following more colourful, but

pragmatic, terms by an American commentator:

Plainly the public interest phrase is one of those atmospheric

commands whose content is as rich and variable as the legal

imagination can make it according to the circumstances that

present themselves to the policy maker (under the supervision

of the courts of course).

It could have been this term that Lewis Carol was thinking of when

he had Humpty Dumpty say:

When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean neither

more nor less.

11. Most attempts were made to describe what is meant by the

public interest , however, the issue of what constitutes the public in

public interest has largely been unexplored. Public interest though

was considered as relates to the interests of members of the

community as a whole, or at least to a substantial segment of them -

that it should be distinguished from individual, sectional or regional

interests, yet at the other end of the spectrum, it is also widely

accepted that the public interest can extend to certain private rights of

individuals - rights that in many societies are regarded as being so

important or fundamental that their protection is seen as being in the

public interest, for example privacy, procedural fairness and the right

to silence. Thus, the public interest must also be able to apply to the interests of groups, classes or sections of a population between those

two ends of the spectrum.

12. Acting in the public interest is a fundamental concept in a

representative democratic system of government or in good public

administration. However, this concept, in practice, is somewhat

complex, and presents two major obstacles to governments and their

public officials acting in the public interest:

firstly, while it is one of the most used terms in the lexicon of public

administration, it is arguably the least defined and least

understood few public officials would have any clear idea what

the term actually means and what its ramifications are in

practice.

secondly, identifying or determining the appropriate public interest

in any particular case is often no easy task - as Lyndon B

Johnson once said: Doing what s right isn t the problem. It s

knowing what s right .

Thus, public officials must determine the public interest as it applies

to them by referring to the purposes for which their organization was

established and the functions they and their organization are required

to perform. They should consider:

1. any enabling legislation setting out objectives, purposes or

functions of the organization

2. relevant government policy

3. their organization s corporate plan or other relevant internal

policy statements, and

4. the duty statement for their position.

We know acting in the public interest has two separate components:

objectives and outcomes - that the objectives and outcomes of the

decision-making process are in the public interest, and

process and procedure - that the process adopted and procedures

followed by decision makers in exercising their discretionary

powers are in the public interest.

The objectives and outcomes component are the aspect of the public

interest most referred to in the literature. The process and procedure

component appears to be less discussed, but is just as important. This

component would include:

a. complying with applicable law (both its letter and spirit);

b. carrying out functions fairly and impartially, with integrity and

professionalism; c. complying with the principles of procedural fairness/natural

justice;

d. acting reasonably;

e. ensuring proper accountability and transparency;

f. exposing corrupt conduct or serious maladministration;

g. avoiding or properly managing situations where their private

interests conflict or might reasonably be perceived to conflict

with the impartial fulfilment of their official duties, and

h. acting apolitically in the performance of their official functions

(not applicable to elected public officials).

13. Applicability of public interest was also focused in Pakistan

Jurisprudence; the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Javed Ibrahim

Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 SC 482)

referred the Public Interest as under:

`Public interest' in the Black Law Dictionary, has been defined as

the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and

protection. Something in which the public as a whole has a

stake; esp., an interest that justifies governmental regulation.

In a case reported as Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal and 21 others v.

Province of Punjab through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs

and others (PLD 2024 Lahore 12) this Court after having a survey of

case laws on the subject held on the definition of Public Interest in

following words:

Now before we examine the impugned Notifications on this touch

stone, it is necessary to understand what 'Public Interest' means.

Although, the expression "public interest" has not been defined

in any law, however, this expression is to be understood and

interpreted in the light of entire scheme, purpose and object of

the enactment in which it is employed.

14. Code of conduct for prosecutors issued by the Prosecutor

General Punjab under Section 17 of the CPS Act, also gives space to

public interest as per Para 5B which requires the prosecutors that in

every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution a

prosecutor must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required

in the public interest and while doing so shall keep in the mind the

public interest factors. The para 5.11 of the Code of conduct further

requires the prosecutors as under;

In deciding the public interest, the prosecutors must take into

account the views of the victims however this is not the

determining factor. The CPS does not act for victims or their families in the same way as lawyers act for their clients, and

prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.

Thus, as held by judgement of Federal Court of Australia referred in

paragraph-9 above that public interest appears in the form of a list of

considerations to be taken into account as factors for evaluation when

making a determination, Code of conduct for prosecutors in the same

line as per para 5.12 lays down the following factors of public interest

which must be kept in mind by the prosecutors while applying public

interest test;

a) How serious is the offence?

b) The extent of culpability of the offender?

c) The circumstances of the Victim?

d) The age and circumstances of the offender

e) The impact of the offence on the community

f) The remorse shown by the offender or actions taken by him to

undo the wrong

g) Is prosecution a proportionate response?

15. Now coming to the case in hand. It was the story of prosecution

that two unknown accused in order to commit robbery have caused

injuries to Gul Muhammad through firing. Learned counsel for the

petitioner claimed false implication of the petitioner on the grounds

that on suspicion petitioner was arrested in this case under section 54

of Cr.P.C., on 18.07.2023, put to test identification parade on 31.07.2023

wherein only complainant has participated whereas the injured Gul

Muhammad had never confronted the petitioner in any proceedings

including test identification parade and Gul Muhammad injured has

also not made any statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., thus, prayed

for release of petitioner on bail.

16. Heard. Record perused.

17. Case analysis collects only one vital fact in issue in this case i.e.,

identification of accused/petitioner, which could not have properly

been attended or addressed by the prosecution. Facts highlighted by

learned counsel for the petitioner, verified by the learned Deputy

Prosecutor General could not fill the pitfall created due to

disassociation of injured Gul Muhammad in the identification process

and there is no support to the prosecution version that actually it was

the petitioner who fired at the injured. Rags of evidence are being

made sticky to flower the barren case; such synthetic flow at this stage

of the proceedings hardly had any effect to cut the relief of petitioner

for bail. Mere recovery of some amount and motorcycle from the petitioner, or criminal history cannot be considered valid material to

decline him the concession of bail even on statutory ground of delay in

conclusion of trial until the offender is convicted in such cases as held

in Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 934).

18. In a case, reported as Akhtar v. Khawas Khan and another (2024

SCMR 476), Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the burden of

proof on prosecution i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt also applies

at all stages including the pre-trial stage, and even at the time of

deciding whether the accused is entitled to bail or not. Prosecution so

far has not discharged such burden successfully. Therefore, petitioner

has succeeded to make out a case for further inquiry. Further, report

of learned trial Court bearing No. 125 dated 08.07.2025 reflects that

charge was framed in this case on 29.04.2025 and prosecution was

responsible for causing delay in conclusion of trial. Petitioner is

behind the bars since 18.07.2023 who had already completed his

statutory period of one year; therefore, has made out a case for bail

not only on merits but on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of

trial as well. There is no likelihood of conclusion of petitioner s trial in

near future and the relief on the basis of such right so accrued in his

favour cannot be refused to him unless he is found to be hardened,

desperate or dangerous criminal, a previous convict for an offence

punishable with death or imprisonment for life or accused of an act of

terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but no such

exception was found in the case of present petitioner. Consequently,

while placing reliance on cases reported as Shakeel Shah v. The State

and others (2022 SCMR 1), Nadeem Samson v. The State and others

(PLD 2022 SC 112), this petition is allowed and the petitioner is

admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the trial Court.

MH/S-73/L Bail allowed.