Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 PHC 202
Court / Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-07-18
Parties: Muhammad Saleem vs The State and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Peshawar High Court on 2025-07-18, officially reported as 2025 PHC 202. In this matter between Muhammad Saleem and The State and another, 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.
Case cited as 2025PHC202
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Tariq Afridi Title: Muhammad Saleem vs The State and another Case No.: Cr.M.(BA) No. 317-B/2025 Date of Judgment:2025-07-18 Reported As: 2025 PHC 202 Result: Application Allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD TARIQ AFRIDI, J.- Through the instant petition filed under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.26, dated 25.01.2025, registered under Sections 302, 109, 201 P.P.C, 15 K.P Arms Act, at Police Station Kirri Khaisor, District D.I.Khan. The petitioner's earlier bail application was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan, on 28.6.2025. 2. As per contents of the crime report, on 25.01.2025 at about 12:40 hours, the complainant Amir Umar Khan brought the dead body of his son, Muhammad Ramzan alias Kakar, to Civil Hospital Paharpur and informed the police that on the preceding evening, the deceased, alongwith a delegation of local elders, went to the village Said Aliyan in three vehicles to meet Kamran Shah, but his son did not return home until morning; that he and his relatives, while searching, reached western side of CRBC at Adda Kacha Mali Khel at 09:30 a.m. where they discovered the lifeless body of his son, who had been shot dead by unidentified culprits. Initially, the F.I.R did not name any accused but during the investigation, the petitioner, Muhammad Saleem emerged as suspect and was subsequently implicated in the crime along with co-accused. 3. Arguments heard and record perused. 4. The name of the petitioner does not find mention in the F.I.R. Subsequently, during the investigation, the petitioner's name emerged as accused in the statement of Muhammad Najib recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.0 on 01.02.2025. In the statement, Muhammad Najib alleged Muhammad Saleem (the petitioner) had murdered the deceased through Adrian, (the juvenile co- accused). Undeniably his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC were recorded with
---
## Page 2
unexplained 07-days delay after the incident. Moreover, Muhammad Najib, is not the eye-witness and the evidentiary of such statement is to be best assessed after recording of evidence. 5. So far as the Call Data Record (CDR) is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in several cases held that in the absence of concrete material, CDR evidence is not conclusive for determining an accused's guilt or innocence. Reliance is placed on judgment reported as "Naveed Sattar v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 205). 6. The accused/petitioner has been implicated in the case allegedly threatening the juvenile accused Adnan with death, which compelled him to commit the murder, however, accused Adnan has not confessed to the crime and the police investigation did not yield any incriminating evidence linking the petitioner to the offence. On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far as available on record, the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of post-arrest bail. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed, and the petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate concerned. The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the proceedings before the trial Court.