ISLAMABAD: Taking exception to the prosecution’s shifting stance without realising the gravity of that conduct in a case regarding expired drugs, the Supreme Court has ruled that whenever reasonable doubt arises, a suspect should not be deprived of the benefit of bail.

The object of a trial is to make an under-trial suspect answer criminal trial instead of punishing by letting him rot behind bars, regretted Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in a verdict published on Wednesday.

He was heading a three-member bench that on July 22 heard a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Akbar, who was originally granted bail by the SC on April 16 in a case registered at Quetta’s New Sariab Police Station.

The SC extended the bail granted earlier on the same terms and conditions, adding that observations made in this bail order were tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case pending before the trial court of either party.

“We are of the firm view that the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry,” Justice Mazhar said in a five-page order.

“Whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of the accused in the crime or the truth or probability of the prosecution case as well as the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail and in such a situation it would be better to keep him on bail than in jail during the trial,” the order read.

Justice Mazhar narrated the sequence of events, noting that the original case was lodged against the suspect under Sections 379, 420, 274, 275, and 276 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), as well as Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act 1976, concerning transportation of expired drugs.

These sections deal with offences affecting public health and safety since they relate to drug adulteration and misrepresentation, and carry penalties up to six months of imprisonment.

Based on these sections, a two-judge SC bench on April 16 granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs100,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

When the SC’s bail order was sent for compliance, it emerged that the prosecution modified the first information report (FIR) by replacing the original provisions with Sections 409, 471, 468, 467, 420, 109 of PPC, read with Section 5 (2) of the 1947 Prevention of Corruption Act.

These sections outline major white-collar and financial crimes involving public servants, forgery, cheating, and abetment. Frequently combined in corruption, bank fraud and property misappropriation-related cases, the provisions spell out severe punishments, ranging from 10 years in jail to life imprisonment.

During the July hearing, when the court confronted state counsel Baqir Shah and Investigating Officer (IO) Muhammad Ajmal about why the FIR was modified by adding new sections of the PPC, they responded that these additions were made on Jan 15 but failed to offer any plausible reason why the modified FIR was not brought on record when the SC granted bail.

They could also not justify deletion of Section 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act 1976 from the FIR when the initial allegation against the petitioner was transporting the expired drugs with alleged violations of the Drugs Act.

When the court asked the IO what new evidence was brought on record which necessitated these insertions, he simply replied that four statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He further said the prosecuting Quetta deputy superintendent of police sought the opinion of the deputy inspector general (Legal), who opined to delete and add new sections.

“It appears from the conduct of the prosecution that to complicate the case with some ulterior motives, the prosecution acted unfairly and added certain sections without realising the effect of deleting these sections of the Drugs Act,” Justice Mazhar observed.

He said another aim may be to frustrate and deprive the petitioner of concession of bail.

Though Justice Mazhar refrained from adverse observations since the matter was still pending with the trial court, he regretted that, due to the concealment of facts, the possibility cannot be ruled out that new sections were added after court order only to deprive the petitioner of bail.

“We are sanguine that new section/offence can be inserted, provided that something was gleaned to the prosecution on investigation of crime but not on the whims of prosecution,” Justice Mazhar stated.

He remarked that the prosecution has “not acted seriously” and that if any insertion was made before the bail was granted, it should have been brought to the SC’s knowledge “for consideration without playing hide and seek”.

The judge regretted that due to “such callous conduct”, the petitioner who was earlier granted bail was still behind the bars.

Due to divergent pleas of the prosecution, as well as insertion and deletion of new and old sections of PPC in the same FIR during trial, the case has otherwise been made out to be a case of further inquiry, the judgment said.

“The prosecution is itself confused regarding the culpability of the petitioner due to changing stances,” it observed, adding the case of further inquiry presupposes tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the suspect in the crime.

• Court dismisses petitions challenging double-murder convictions
• Verdict explains that closing eyes of a corpse is ‘religious’ custom, not legal duty

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the condition of a deceased person’s eyes at the time of death cannot conclusively establish the fact that the incident was not witnessed.

The Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, does not impose a legal duty to close a deceased person’s eyes. Rather, the practice is customary and religious, observed Justice Salahuddin Panhwar while dismissing jail petitions filed by Azmat Ullah alias Motu and Muhammad Luqman alias Gona.

The petitioners had challenged their convictions in a 2011 double-murder case, upheld by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on May 18, 2022.

Justice Panhwar was part of a three-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar. The bench upheld the convictions under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code but maintained the high court’s decision to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment.

In criminal trials, defence lawyers often argue that an incident was ‘unwitnessed’ if the post-mortem report records the deceased’s eyes as open, reasoning that close relatives would ordinarily close them after death.

During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel pointed to discrepancies in eyewitness statements and argued that the post-mortem and inquest reports, which recorded the eyes of both victims as open, indicated that the murders had not been witnessed.

Article 129 versus rigid presumptions

In a nine-page judgement, Justice Panhwar referred to Article 129 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, which allows courts to presume facts they consider likely in the circumstances of a particular case.

However, the judgement stressed that human behaviour could not be assessed in a vacuum or through rigid assumptions. Responses to trauma, terror and violent loss vary from person to person, making it unsafe to draw categorical conclusions from a single circumstance.

It noted that relatives witnessing a gruesome incident may be overwhelmed by shock and trauma.

Hoping their loved one might survive, they may focus on obtaining urgent medical assistance rather than performing customary rituals associated with death.

Relatives and bystanders may also continue treating the victim as injured until a doctor or police official confirms death, which may not be immediately apparent at the scene.

Other factors

From a forensic perspective, the position of the eyelids is governed by physiological processes rather than the presence or absence of witnesses, the judgement explained.

Following death, muscles initially become relaxed, allowing eyelids to remain open or partially open, a condition known as lagophthalmos.

Handling or moving a body may also cause previously closed eyes to reopen, particularly before rigor mortis develops. As rigor mortis sets in, muscles become stiff and retain their prevailing position.

The court also cited Locard’s Exchange Principle, which holds that every contact leaves a trace. Relatives, bystanders and rescue workers may avoid touching a body to prevent contamination or disturbance of blood-spatter patterns, trace evidence and DNA material before forensic experts arrive.

It would therefore be unsafe to presume that every person knows how to handle a deceased body or feels obliged to close the eyes, the judgement said.

Concluding that neither forensic literature nor the law recognises closed eyes as an indicator of a witnessed death, the court rejected the argument that open eyelids alone could establish that a crime was unwitnessed.

The judgement further observed that minor discrepancies and natural variations in eyewitness accounts, arising from the passage of time and the rigours of cross-examination, do not undermine otherwise credible and consistent testimony.

Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2026