Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4789
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: Umer Farooq alias Ahtisham vs The State etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4789. In this matter between Umer Farooq alias Ahtisham and The State etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem) DECISION DATE: 16-07-2026 TAGLINE: (i) A belated supplementary statement implicating a previously unknown accused based on undisclosed sources, vague suspicions or unverified informers lacks evidentiary value; relying solely on such material for arrest is an oppressive exercise of power which renders the prosecution's case highly doubtful and entitles the accused to bail under Section 497, Cr.P.C. (ii) A confession made before the police during an investigation holds no evidentiary value and is strictly inadmissible as substantive evidence under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. CASE DETAILS: Crl. Misc. 39870/26 ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
Umer Farooq alias Ahtisham versus The State and another
S.No. of order/ Proceeding Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel, where necessary. 16.07.2026 Mr. Fawad Gondal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Muhammad Naveed Umar Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General with Shahzada Sultan, Addl. Inspector General of Police ( Investigation), Punjab, Lahore, Kamran Amir, District Police Officer, Mandi Bahauddin, Arslan, DSP (Legal) and Afaaq S.I./I.O. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Golarvi, Advocate for the complainant
Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Umer Farooq alias Ahtisham seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.2131 dated 14.11.2024, registered under Sections 302, 34 PPC, at Police Station Civil Line, Mandi Bahauddin. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution story as unfolded in the crime report is that on 13.11.2024 at about 07:30 p.m., Muhammad Faisal Shahzad , brother of Mian Hasnat Ahmed complainant , was proceeding on his motorcycle to meet an acquaintance. When he reached the street situated behind the MBM Showroom, four unknown armed persons riding on two motorcycles intercepted him from the front and behind. With a shared intention to commit murder, the unknown assailants allegedly opened fire with 30 -bore pistols. The fire shots hit Muhammad Faisal Shahzad on his head, face, forehead, arms and chest, resulting in his death on the spot. The tragic incident was purportedly witnessed by Abdul Rauf and Muhammad Naseer, who also saw the fleeing culprits in 2 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
the illumination of a street bu lb, claiming they could identify the assailants if brought before them. Consequently, the instant FIR was registered against four unknown accused under Sections 302 and 34 PPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Mandi Bahauddin. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the record minutely with their able assistance. 4. After goin g through the narration of the crime report as well as the evidentiary material collected by the police and presented before this Court, it transpires that the crime report in this case was lodged at 01:00 a.m. (night) on 14.11.2024 i.e. five and a half ho urs after the incident, yet no person was nominated therein by the complainant or purported eye witnesses of the tragedy in their initial statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. before the investigating officer. Subsequently on 18.08.2025, after an unexplained delay of about nine months and five days, the complainant got his supplementary statement recorded before the investigating officer, wherein he implicated the petitioner with the assertions that while he and his companions were searching for unknown suspects, a special informer provided a tip to PW Muhammad Naseer , identifying one of the suspects as Umar Farooq alias Ahtisham Warraich (petitioner), who had married the ex -wife of the deceased of case FIR No.433/24 namely Ehsan Ilahi . This prompted the complainant and the eye witnesses to act on the information by going to the residence of the petitioner, where, upon their arrival, the petitioner immediately spotted them, acted suspiciously and fled away from the 3 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
scene on foot. It is obvious that while reco rding his considerably belated supplementary statement, the complainant failed to disclose the source of information and he as well as other eye witnesses also did not ascribe any specific role to the petitioner. 5. On Court’s query that how the above men tioned evidence in the shape of supplementary statement was sufficient to arrest the petitioner, learned counsel representing the complainant firmly replied that neither the complainant nor his eye witnesses got recorded their supplementary statements in this case rather investigating officer himself has written the same. Addressing a substantially analogous query, Addl. Inspector General of Police (Investigation), Punjab, Lahore, in attendance, has apprised the Court that there is no provision of law in a ny statute for recording supplementary statement of any witness and the investigating officers tend to record supplementary statements just to fulfill their own ulterior and sinister motives. He admitted that in this case, supplementary statements of the c omplainant and other witnesses were not sufficient to cause arrest of the petitioner, because, they have not disclosed therein any plausible source of information qua implication of the petitioner in this case. He further admitted that such type of evidenc e is not sufficient to arrest any accused in any case and even promised the Court to issue a direction to his subordinates in the Province of Punjab to abstain from arresting any person on such type of evidence. 6. The status and evidentiary value of supplementary statements, particularly when used to nominate an accused after significant delay, have been settled by the apex Court. It is an established principle that when an 4 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
accused is not named in FIR and is subsequ ently implicated through supplementary statement based on an undisclosed or unverified source, the statutory prohibition of Section 497, Cr.P.C. is prima facie bypassed, entitling the accused to bail as held in the case titled as “Naeem Akhtar v. The State” (1996 SCMR 511) in the following words:- “The learned State Counsel read the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded in the case but this statement did not disclose as to how the complainant came to know the name of the appellant when in fact she was neither known to the appellant nor she disclosed his name in the F.I.R. lodged in the case. We are, therefore, of the view that at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused is reasonably believed to have committed the offence which fell withi n the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.” The apex Court has taken strict notice of the growing tendency to implicate an accused at a belated stage. In the cases titled as “Abdul Wahid v. The State and another” (2022 SCMR 1954) and “Abid v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another ” (2026 SCMR 635), the Supreme Court of Pakistan established that when an accused is not nominated in the initial crime report and is later implicated through a belated supplementary statement without disc losing the source, the prosecution’s case becomes highly doubtful, bringing the matter squarely within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Similarly in the case titled as “Syed Muhammad Firdaus v. The State ” (2005 SCMR 784) , the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to ponder upon the evidentiary worth of belated supplementary statement by holding that it is a matter strictly for the trial court to determine after recording evidence. Further guidance has also been sought from the 5 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
case-laws titled as “Asfand Yar Khan and another v. The State and another ” (2020 SCMR 715), “Muhammad Jahangir Afzal v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another” (2020 SCMR 935), “Ahmad Ali v. The State and another ” (2021 SCMR 470), “Haider Ali v. The State and others ” (2021 SCMR 629) and “Muhammad Naeem Hassan v. State through P.G. Punjab and another” (2022 SCMR 523), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan has made quite analogous observations regarding the credibility of supplementary statements in criminal cases. 7. This Court has also comprehensively discussed the legal efficacy and admissibility of supplementary statement in the case -law reported as “Rashida Bibi vs. Station House Officer & another ” (PLJ 2024 Cr.C 700) by holding that it, alo ne, cannot serve as a valid legal basis for arresting an accused. The Court has further observed in the op. -cit. case-law that the police officials often attempt to justify the arrest of the accused and obtain physical remand by relying solely on such like supplementary statements , however, this practice is legally unsustainable because an arrest is a grave matter which must be justified by sufficient, independent and actionable material, directly connecting the accused to a cognizable offence. Ultimately, the reliance on such supplementary statements by both the police in their remand applications and the Magistrate in granting remand, without the application of an independent judicial mind, represents an oppressive exercise of power that the judiciary is o bligated to curb. Finally, this Court held in the above mentioned pronouncement that the supplementary statements based on “complainant’s knowledge through reliable source (without disclosing 6 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
the same)”, “land lord’s clue (زمیندارہ گوی ڑ that any person is involved in the commission of crime”, “strong suspicion” or “firm belief” are not enough to arrest any person in a criminal case. Consequently, it is held that implicating an accused through supplementary statement, without disclosing any plausible source of information, holds no evidentiary value and is not permissible under the law. A copy of this pronouncement was widely circulated amongst police hierarchy in the Province of Punjab but Afaq Ahmad S.I./I.O. has not obeyed the direction of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that during the course of investigation, the petitioner confessed before the Investigating Officer to have committed the murder of Muhammad Faisal Shahzad (deceased), but he could not controvert that such like confession before the police carries no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Under the provisions Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat Order, 1984, any confession made before or to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence, except to th e limited extent permitted by law. Sections 38 and 39 of the Order ibid are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 38. Confession to police officer not to be proved. – No confession made to a police -officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
39. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. – Subject to Article 40, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police - officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a M agistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Consequently, the alleged confession attributed to the petitioner before the police cannot, by itself, be 7 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
treated as substantive evidence to connect him with the commission of alleged offence and its evidentiary value shall also be seen by the trial court after recording and evaluating the prosecution evidence. Reliance is placed upon the case-laws titled as “Raja Muhammad Younas v. The State ” (2013 SCMR 669) and “Akhtar v. Khwas Khan and another” (2024 SCMR 476). In the latter case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: - “5. ……..… So far as the alleged confession of the petitioner before police during investigation is concerned, the niceties of Article 38 of the Qanun - e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are quite lucid that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence, while Article 39 emphasizes that, subject to Article 40, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Seemingly, a confession made before the police is not made admissible by dint of the aforesaid provisions of the Qanun -e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in order to preserve and safeguard the philosophy of safe admi nistration of criminal justice and is also based on public policy. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are sanguine that the case of petitioner requires further inquiry to prove his guilt which can only be thrashed out after recording of evidence in the Trial Co urt………” 9. No doubt while deciding post -arrest bail application, Courts must only tentatively assess the evidence to establish a prima facie case, reserving deeper evaluation for the formal trial. However, this judicial restraint does not prevent the prote ction of personal liberty. If the prosecution’s case contains substantial uncertainties, Courts can rightfully extend the benefit of doubt in favour of an accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case so warrant. Reliance is placed upon the case titl ed as “Resham Khan and another v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and 8 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
another” (2021 SCMR 2011 ), “Muhammad Ijaz v. The State and others ” (2022 SCMR 1271) and “Naveed Sattar v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 205). 10. Furthermore, it is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence that the liberty of an individual is an invaluable fundamental right, unequivocally guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Courts serve as the guardians of th ese rights and have a strong duty to protect the citizens from losing their freedom without just cause. The law presumes an accused to be innocent until proven guilty; therefore, unwarranted pre-trial incarceration essentially amounts to premature punishment. In holding so, guidance is sought from the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of “Abdul Rehman v. The State and others” (2023 SCMR 2081) and “Muhammad Anwar v. The State and another” (2024 SCMR 1567). 11. Law is also well-settled on the point that it is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence can repair the wrong resulting by mistaken relief of bail. Reliance is placed upon the case law titled as “Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G.NAB v. Nisar Ahmed Pathan and others ” (PLD 2022 SC 475), “Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo v. The State ” (2023 SCMR 734) and “Ahmad Nawaz and another v. The State and another” (2024 SCMR 1525). 12. So far as the recovery of 30 -bore pistol from the petitioner is concerned, admittedly the complainant and other prosecution witnesses have not specified anywhere the kind of weapon with which the petitioner was allegedly equipped at the time of incident and they have also not ascribe d any specific role of using such a 9 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
weapon during the occurrence. Even otherwise, it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere recovery of a weapon in the absence of independent evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime cannot act as a solitary ground to withhold bail, therefore, legal worth of this piece of evidence will also be determined by the trial court after recording of evidence. 13. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has also vehemently argued that apart from the instant case, the petitioner is involved in so many other criminal cases, however, he has frankly admitted that no conviction order has been brought on the record against the petitioner to establish that he is a previous convict. It is settled principle of law that mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused person is no ground to deprive him from the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on the case-laws titled as “Qurban Ali v. The State and another” (2017 SCMR 279), “Nazir Ahmad alias Bhaga v. The State and others” (2022 SCMR 1467) and “Muhammad Amjad Naeem v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another” (2025 SCMR 1130). In Muhammad Amjad Naeem’s case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as infra: - “……..…Similarly, bail should not be withheld solely on the ground that the accused is nominated in other similar FIR's. It is only a previous conviction -duly established through adjudication by trial - and not mere registration of other criminal cases, that can furnish a valid ground for denial of bail. This legal position has been consistently upheld in various judgments of this Court. Reference in this respect can be made to cases reported as Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934), Muhammad Rafique (1997 SCMR 412), Arsalan Masih v. State (2019 SCMR 1152), Babar Hussain v. State (2020 SCMR 871), Syeda Sumera Andaleeb v. The State (2021 SCMR 1227), Nazir Ahmad v. State (2022 SCMR 10 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
1467) and Ali Anwar Paracha v. The State (2024 SCMR 1596). It is a foundational principle of criminal law that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Refusal of bail simply because the accused is nominated in another similar FIR would be tantamount to inflicting punishment before trial, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence. ………” 14. The other contention of learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant is that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime and for the reason, he is not entitled to the concession of bail is concerned, it is well settled by now that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground for refusal of bail to an accused if otherwise he is entitled to it. Reliance is placed upon the case -law titled as “Hasnain Mustafa v. The State and another” (2019 SCMR 1914). 15. The petitio ner is behind the bars since his arrest and the investigation to the extent of petitioner is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. 16. Consequently, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post -arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten hundred thousand only ) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 17. It is, howe ver, clarified that observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. 18. Before parting with this order, Office is directed to transmit a copy hereof to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, for downward circulation amongst all Regional Police Officers, City Police Officers, District 11 Crl.Misc. No.39870-B of 2026
Police Officers and Heads of Inve stigation across the Province. They are directed to ensure that in the future, any case involving the implication of an accused through supplementary statement is strictly scrutinized by them to verify whether such nomination is legally warranted, keeping in view the guidelines already enunciated by this Court in the case -law reported as “Rashida Bibi v. Station House Officer & another” (PLJ 2024 Cr.C 700). A compliance report confirming the province-wide circulation of this order shall be submitted to thi s Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within a fortnight.
(Muhammad Tariq Nadeem) Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
(Muhammad Tariq Nadeem) Judge
Announced, dictated, prepared and signed On 16-07-2026 Anjum مقدس