Muhammad Shakeel vs State etc.

Form No. HCJD/C-121.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

Crl. Misc. No.2598-B of 2026.

Muhammad Shakeel Vs. The State etc.

S.No. Of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of judge, and that of parties or counsel, Proceeding Proceeding where necessary, 25.08.2026. Mr. Khadim Hussain Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Malik Rafaqat Ali, DPG for the State with Amir S.I. Muhammad Shakeel, petitioner through instant petition seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.01, dated 02.01.2026, offences under Sections 322, 320, 337-G, 279, 427 PPC, registered at Police Station City Hassan Abdal, District Attock.

2.As per allegations leveled in the FIR, on 02.01.2026 at about 03.15 P.M., a dumper No.9722/D.I. Khan, came on G.T. Road from Peshawar side, was being driven by some unknown person rashly and negligently, who hit the motorcycle of Mudassar (son of the complainant) from back side, due to which his son was severely injured and later on succumbed to injuries.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.This Court has observed that initially F.I.R. was lodged against an unknown accused person and later on complainant got recorded his supplementary statement on 04.01.2026, wherein, he nominated one Tariq Mehmood s/o Muhammad Maskeen as accused, whose pre-arrest bail was confirmed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan Abdal, Attock vide order dated 22.01.2026. Thereafter on 22.06.2026, the present petitioner Muhammad Shakeel was nominated in this case by the prosecution on the basis of C.D.R. i.e. after a period of more than five months. Moreover, the offence under Section 320 PPC has been deleted vide zimni No.6 dated 22.06.2026 and offence under Section 322 PPC has been added (which is non-bailable), whereas, the

Crl. Misc. No.2598-B of 2026.

remaining offences i.e. under Sections 279, 337-G and 427 PPC are bailable. The punishment provided for the offence under Section 322 PPC is only Diyat. Although the offence under Section 322 PPC is non-bailable yet no punishment of imprisonment is provided for the said offence. If, an accused charged under Section 322 PPC, upon pleading his guilty or after his trial is convicted, he can only be kept in confinement in case he commits default in the payment of Diyat amount, at moment, incarceration of the petitioner pending trial would amount to double jeopardy and it is settled law that where the criminal liability of an offence is Diyat only, that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the acceptance of bail is the rule and the rejection is an exception. Reliance has been placed on the cases of Tariq Bashir and others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34) and Muhammad Zahid versus The State and another (2021 YLR 1959). Moreover, the complainant has not mentioned the name of even a single witness in the F.I.R. who has seen the accused while committing the occurrence. In the instant case, present petitioner has been nominated on the basis of mere C.D.R data and the admissibility of the same would be determined by the learned trial Court, which has not yet concluded. In the case of Naveed Sattar versus The State and others (2024 SCMR 205), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “...So far as the Call Data Record (CDR) is concerned, this Court in a number of cases has held that in absence of any concrete material the CDR is not a conclusive piece of evidence to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused.” In the case of Shameem Bibi versus The State and others (2022 SCMR 2077), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “We have specifically asked the learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for the

Crl. Misc. No.2598-B of 2026.

complainant to show us from record any material, which could prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of crime but except the Call Data Record (CDR), they could not show us anything. This court in a number of cases has held that in absence of any concrete material the Call Data Record is not a conclusive piece of evidence to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused. On our query, learned Law Officer admitted that as yet there is no evidence that the mobile phone belonged to the petitioner and the SIM was in her name. In these circumstances, the (Call Data Record) CDR in isolation does not advance the prosecution’s case unless and until some credible material in this regard has been collected.”

Besides, the liability of the present petitioner or charge leveled against him could only be determined by the trial court after recording and evaluating the evidence.

5.The petitioner is behind the bars since 22.06.2026. The investigation of the case is complete and person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his further detention in jail would serve no useful purpose to the prosecution.

6.For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. It is further observed that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on any of the other proceedings connected to this case.

(Khalid Ibn-i-Aziz)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Judge This order has been dictated, pronounced, prepared and signed on 25.08.2026.

Umar Hayat*