Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
- Case No. Crl. Misc. No. 699-B/2025
Samar Abbas Versus The State etc. - Case No. Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B/2025
Muhammad Ramzan Versus The State etc.
Sr.No.of
order/
Proceedings
Date of order/
Proceedings
Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where
necessary.
22.04.2025 Malik Nazar Hussain Paunta, Advocate for the petitioner in
Crl. Misc. No.699-B of 2025.
Mian Muhammad Hanif, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.
Misc. No.1362-B of 2025.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, Deputy Prosecutor General with
Sajid, SI & Muhammad Abbas, SI.
Mr. Allah Bakhsh Khan Kulachi & Ms. Raheela Saleem,
Advocates for the complainant.
This single order shall dispose of titled petitions filed under
Section 497 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners seeking post arrest bail in
case FIR No.444 dated 15.05.2024 registered under Sections
302/324/109/114/34-PPC at Police Station City Muzaffargarh,
District Muzaffargarh. - It was the story of FIR that on 15.05.2024 at about 10:30 a.m.,
Muhammad Ishaq complainant along with his elder brother Ashfaq
Hussain on their separate motorcycles left for their house from
cardboard godown situated near Beehari colony, and at about 10:35
a.m., when they crossed thermal power bypass, Ashfaq Hussain was
approximately 100 yards ahead from the complainant, two unknown
persons one muffled face and other not muffled riding on a
motorcycle crossed the complainant and signaled his brother to stop
the motorcycle who acted upon the direction; upon which person not
muffled (pillion rider) made three fires with his pistol which hit
Ashfaq Hussain at his back; the complainant after stopping his
motorcycle came forward, said person made two fires in the air and
threatened him not to come near; the witnesses Abdul Ghaffar &
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 2
Liaqat Hussain emerged there and Ashfaq Hussain was shifted to
DHQ hospital, Muzaffargarh who later succumbed to the injures. - Learned counsel (s) for the petitioners contended that
primarily, no one was nominated in the FIR and police remained on
searching unknown accused for more than five months, and this
effort of police was being reported in the daily newspapers because
the deceased was a renowned journalist, on whose assassination
Chief Minister of the Punjab had also taken a serious notice.
However, on the arrest of petitioners in the month of October, 2024,
police claimed Samar Abaas petitioner as close relative and
neighbour of deceased, whereas Ramzan petitioner was employee of
Samar Abass. Both were employed at D.G. Khan Cement Factory,
Dera Ghazi Khan. However, police while ignoring above facts,
procured an ante-dated supplementary statement of the complainant
of 16.05.2024 (next day of occurrence), for nomination of
accused/petitioners to show that case was of direct ocular evidence,
otherwise it was a blind murder. In support of such contention, some
press clippings of “Daily Khabrain Multan” dated 15.05.2024,
20.05.2024, 24.05.2024, 26.06.2024 & 20.10.2024 found appended
with the bail petition. Further submitted that by virtue of press
clipping dated 20.10.2024, petitioners were shown arrested and, in
such press clipping it was reported that after 05 months of the
occurrence, for the murder of Ashfaq, his close relatives and
neighbour have been arrested; therefore, effort of police to show the
existence of supplementary statement of the complainant on the very
next day (16.05.2024), is nothing but padding into the evidence. He
asserted that such press clippings can be looked into at this stage for
relief of bail to the petitioners and in this respect placed his reliance
on cases reported as “ANWAR HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus The
STATE” (2019 YLR 1117); “IMRAN MALIK Versus The STATE”
(2018 MLD 1116).
Learned counsel (s) for the petitioners further added that Police
Emergency call at 15 was made by one Khurram from the place of
occurrence which carries an impression that complainant and PWs
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 3
were not present at time of occurrence, and initiation of private
prosecution through direct complaint after 08 months of the
occurrence clearly shows the police and the complainant on different
poles. This distrust was either of the complainant on the police
investigation, or police was not ready to accept the command of the
complainant. - Learned counsel (s) for the complainant on the other hand,
opposed the bails on the grounds that Muhammad Ishaq, complainant
has made first statement before the police with nomination of the
petitioners on the same day which was written down by a witness
Abdul Ghaffar whose signatures are also mentioned on such
application, but police malafidely did not register the FIR correctly.
Further stated that petitioners were employees of D.G. Khan Cement
Company and prosecution has also obtained a report of their absence
from the said company at the relevant time which was received vide
letter dated 24.10.2024. Another evidence alleged was the CDR of
the accused/petitioners, showing their link on the day of occurrence. - Heard; record perused.
- First and the foremost fact in this case is the absence of the
petitioners on the day of occurrence from D.G. Khan Cement
Company. Does the report furnished by the company really tag them
absent on that day? Let’s see what the report speaks; it is as under;
Subject: ATTENDANCE RECORD
Attendance record of the following employees of the
month of May 2024 is attached as desired, please.
a. Sammar Abbas Assistant Junior Officer (Electrical)
However, he was not present at place of duty on 15 May
2024 during duty hours.
b. Muhammad Ramzan, Helper (WHRPP)
The above report was confusing; however, separate sheets attached
with report reflect that Samar Abass petitioner was Employee
No. 3516 and was in attendance in the company office from 7.58 a.m.
to 15.58 p.m. on 15.05.2024; whereas Ramazan Petitioner being
Employee No. 91459 was absent on that day. It was the stance of the
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 4
company that though attendance of Samar Abass petitioner is marked
in the record yet he was not physically present in the company, but
such stance is not supported by any material, documentary or
forensic. Role of driving motorcycle was assigned to Muhammad
Ramzan petitioner, whereas role of firing was assigned to Samar
Abass petitioner but from the circumstances on the record, it becomes
evident that he was in D.G. Khan Cement company at the time of
occurrence, casting a doubt on his involvement in commission of
murder. - Though CDR data was claimed showing connection of Samar
Abbas and Muhammad Ramzan near the place of occurrence but
without any voice message/transcript. Thus, it does not connect the
petitioners with the commission of offence until and unless such
CDR is formalized in accordance with law as enunciated in judgment
of Full Bench of this Court in a case reported as “Mst. SAIMA
NOREEN Versus The STATE and another” (PLJ 2023 Cr. C 371 (FB);
for reference, relevant paragraph is reproduced; - Although any accused or witness can claim or admit possession and
use of any SIM “Subscriber Identity Module’ by him or anybody else at
the time of occurrence or any other relevant time yet mere such claim or
admission is not sufficient for relying on CDR “Call Data Record” of
said SIM because CDR only shows use of SIM in territorial/geographical
jurisdiction of “Cell Phone Tower” installed by telecom operator and
does not disclose that who is actually/exactly carrying and using said
SIM; however, “Voice Record Transcript” or “End to End Audio
Recording” can reflect the detail/identification of the user. Therefore,
without “Voice Recording Transcript”, mere “Call Data Record” (CDR)
alone of the SIM is inconclusive piece of evidence regarding identity of
its user/carrier.” - Learned counsel for the complainant states that pistol
recovered on the lead of Samar Abbas, petitioner stood matched with
the spent shells C-1 to C-5, therefore, his criminal liability stays. Had
it been an occurrence of circumstantial evidence, all the evidence
could have easily been looked in the form of a chain well knitted or
scrambled, but once prosecution opted to make it a case of ocular
account, then circumstances highlighted by learned counsel (s) for
the petitioners including press clipping apparently make the case
against the petitioners doubtful.
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 5 - However, the repeated reliance of learned counsel (s) for the
petitioners upon press clippings and claim of learned Counsel (s) for
the complainant that it is inadmissible piece of evidence carrying a
status of second-degree hearsay and misleading, a duty somewhat
cast upon this court to re-thrash the admissibility or evidentiary value
of press clippings. In the backdrop of contention, I have perused the
relevant case laws on the subject and found that press clippings have
been used by the Courts in following three situations;
a) In Constitutional jurisdiction for matters of public importance.
b) Presumption by Courts in criminal jurisdiction.
c) Evidence of any party in criminal jurisdiction.
For the first situation, in the following judgments, while dealing with
political statements/speeches against the State published in
newspapers attributed to political leaders, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan has held that such statements if have not been denied or
repudiated could be used as evidence against them. Reference is
made to cases reported as “Mohtarma BENAZIR BHUTTO and another
versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others” (PLD 1998 Supreme
Court 388), and “ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND KASHMIR AFFAIRS,
ISLAMABAD versus ABDUL WALI KHAN, M. N. A., FORMER
PRESIDENT OF DEFUNCT NATIONAL AWAMI PARTY” (PLD 1976
Supreme Court 57), wherein it was held as under;
“It cannot be denied that so far as newspaper reports of
contemporaneous events are concerned, they may be admissible,
particularly where they happen to be events of local interest or of
such a public nature as would be generally known throughout the
community and testimony of an eyewitness is not readily
available. The contemporary newspaper account may well be
admitted in evidence in such circumstances as has often been
done by Courts in the United States of America not because they
are `business records’ or “ancient documents’ but because they
may well be treated as a trustworthy contemporaneous account of
events or happenings which took place a long time ago or in a
foreign country which cannot easily be proved by direct ocular
oral testimony. Thus, if a person does not avail of the opportunity
to contradict or question the truthfulness of the statement
attributed to him and widely published in newspapers he cannot
complain if that publication is used against him. Such a user
would not be hit by the rule of hearsay.”
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 6
Whereas in a case reported as “Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF
Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of
Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others” (PLD 2004
Supreme Court 583), it was held as under;
“Newspaper reports and articles can only be used in above
exceptional circumstances meaning thereby that if on record
admissible evidence is available which is not disputed between
the parties particularly in the cases where the
defendant/respondent himself had brought on record certain
documents in proof of his plea then the Court is not, debarred
from looking into the same for the purpose of arriving at a just
conclusion particularly in the exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 199 and Article 184(3) of the Constitution, where the
Court had no occasion to record the evidence itself and had to
base its decision on the pleadings of the parties who were
supported with the documents like the present case petitioners
wherein had relied upon the press clippings and articles but the
respondents either on their own or under directions of the Court
had brought on record material to satisfy the Court that the
transaction under challenge is in accordance with law. Therefore,
while accepting such request and declining to give relief, it would
be incumbent upon the Court to rely upon the documents which
are not disputed between the parties and such documents can be
considered/treated as evidence on record. - Presumption by Courts in criminal jurisdiction, is the subject
matter of the Evidence Act 1872 which with certain modifications
was also applicable to the different States of India and by virtue of
that Court was authorized to presume the genuineness of newspapers
or journal as per Section 81 of said Act, which is as under; - Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of
Parliament and other documents. The Court shall presume the
genuineness of every document purporting to be the London
Gazette or [any official Gazette, or the Government
Gazette] [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for “the Gazette of India, or
the Government Gazette of any L.G., or”.] of any colony,
dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a
newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of
Parliament [of the United Kingdom] [Inserted by A.O.
1950.] printed by the Queen’s Printer and of every document
purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by
any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form
required by law and is produced from proper custody.
With the development of technology and availability of modern
devices, above Section was later supplemented through Section 81A
as under;
Presumption as to Gazettes in electronic forms.[Inserted by
Act 21 of 2000, Section 92 and Sch.II (w.e.f. 17.10.2000).]The
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 7
Court shall presume the genuineness of every electronic record
purporting to be the Official Gazette, or purporting to be
electronic record directed by any law to be kept by any person,
if such electronic record is kept substantially in the form
required by law and is produced from proper custody.
These two sections still exist in the law of evidence of India, now
titled as “the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023” in the forms of
Section 80 & 81, but by the promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984, Section 81 of the Evidence Act 1872 was not re-enacted
rather opted to skip it in the new legislation. Thus, Courts in Pakistan
by law cannot presume the genuineness of a newspaper. Same
observation has been made by the Court in a case reported as
“ZAHID versus THE STATE” (PLD 1993 Karachi 337). However,
in a case reported as “BANARIS KHAN versus The STATE and 2
others” (2015 YLR 2076) Federal Shariat Court while dilating upon
the issue of publication of confession of an accused in newspaper 4
days prior to its actual making held that in the light of judgment
reported as ‘Wattan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC
697), Court can take judicial notice of news items. This observation
is in line with provisions of Article 111 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order
1984 which is as under;
“111. Fact Judicially noticeable need not be proved: No fact
of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved.”
Some misunderstanding in law prevails that Court can take judicial
notice of only those facts which are listed in Article 112 of Qanun-eShahadat Order 1984, and of course newspaper or journal is not
mentioned in such Article. Suffice it to say that such Article says that
“Facts of which Court must take judicial notice” the word “must” make it
obligatory for the Court to take judicial notice of all such facts listed
in Article 112 ibid without asking for a formal proof. Whereas
Article 111 ibid gives a discretion to the Court to take judicial notice
of any fact not listed in Article 112 ibid, depending upon the
circumstances of the case. Thus, Court can take judicial notice of a
news clipping subject to the considerations that its admissibility
depends on several factors, including the relevance to the case, the
authenticity of the clipping, and whether the court deems it reliable.
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 8
- However, as a general principle the Supreme Court of Pakistan
has held in case reported as “WATTAN PARTY through President
Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Committee of
Privatization, Islamabad and others” (P L D 2006 Supreme Court
697) that following parameters must be met for the purpose of taking
judicial notice of a newspaper report and articles: –
(i) Where direct evidence is not available.
(ii) Where it is sought to be proved that a person has notice of
the contents of the newspaper report.
(iii) Where it is sought to be shown that a person is an author or
otherwise responsible for the statement or article published in a
newspaper which is to be used against him.
(iv) In cases of defamation.
(v) If the issue/occurrence is rather old and eye-witnesses are
either wanting or less reliable.
Keeping in view the above parameters, it was held in a case reported
as “ALIM-UD-DIN versus The STATE” (PLD 1982 Lahore 141)
that newspaper reports may be admissible in evidence when
testimony of a witness is not readily available. In another case
reported as “Mrs. MAMOONA SAEED Versus GOVERNMENT OF
THE PUNJAB and others” (2003 YLR 2397), it was held that
newspaper clippings are admissible in evidence in case the same
were not contradicted. - The third situation for use of press clippings is in the form of
evidence produced by any party in criminal proceedings. It is
consensus that press clipping is hearsay evidence and is not
admissible under the law unless the author or reporter volunteers to
appear as witness to prove the authenticity of the facts stated therein.
Reliance in this respect is on cases reported as “Kh. IJAZ AHMED
versus D.R.O. and others” (2001 YLR 448); “MANZOOR Versus THE
STATE” (2010 YLR 602); “QURBAN ALI and another versus The
STATE” (PLD 2014 Sindh 538); “Mst. SHAKILA BANO versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MODEL COLONY, SIR,
KARACHI and another” (PLD 1995 Karachi 555); “Ch. AAMIR
SHAHZAD Versus MUHAMMAD MAKKI and 5 others” (2021 YLR
1641); “MUHMMAD ASHRAF KHAN Versus The STATE and another”
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 9
(1996 SCMR 1747); “Malik MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ QADRI Versus
THE STATE and others” (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 17). - Even the rule of hearsay is not absolute, for, it is subject to
certain exceptions. One of these is that statements accompanying and
explaining facts are not hit by the hearsay rule. Thus, even in the case
of hearsay as observed in Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn., Vol
15, at page 320) in estimating the weight to be attached to a statement
“regard must be had to all circumstances from which any inference as
to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement can reasonably be
drawn, and in particular to the questions whether the statement was
contemporaneous with the facts stated and whether the maker had any
incentive to conceal or misrepresent the facts”. Explanatory facts are
regarded as relevant facts as per Article 22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984 which says that facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in
issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a
fact in issue or relevant fact……………………, are relevant in so far as they
are necessary for that purpose. In such situation, of course press clipping
could be considered as explanatory evidence, that shall be read in
conjunction with other evidence on the record, because press clipping as
sole evidence cannot prove a fact beyond reasonable doubt. - It is trite that while considering material at bail stage, Court
always acts inquisitorially to search for avenues of further inquiry into
the guilt of accused, and thus, can consider any material, that can be
transformed into admissible format at a later stage, in order to grant or
decline bail to the accused. The above highlights on the subject of
press clippings show that if author or reporter of press clipping
appears in the dock, it could become admissible evidence; however,
cogency whereof rests upon the intrinsic value of information, its
reliability and source authentication which of course would be
determined after recording of all the evidence in the case. Thus, Court
can consider this piece of evidence at this stage as well. - At present, facts highlighted by learned counsel (s) for the
petitioners clearly show that implication of present petitioners in this
Crl. Misc. No. 699-B of 2025
Crl. Misc. No. 1362-B of 2025 10
case rests on frail pillars. The above situation provides a premium to
the petitioners to seek bail on the touchstone of further inquiry which
is very much available in this case. Thus, petitioners have made out a
case for further inquiry. Reliance in this respect is placed on cases
reported as “MAZHAR ALI Versus The STATE and another” (2025
SCMR 318), “ZEESHAN Versus The STATE and another” (2024
SCMR 1716), “Mst. ISHRAT BIBI Versus The STATE through
Prosecutor General, Punjab and another” (2024 SCMR 1528),
“SAEED AHMED and another Versus The STATE” (PLD 2024
Supreme Court 1241), “SALMAN ZAHID Versus The STATE
through P.G. Sindh” (2023 SCMR 1140) “GUL MUHAMMAD
Versus The STATE” (2023 SCMR 857) & “MUHAMMAD NAEEM
HASSAN Versus The STATE through P.G., Punjab and another”
(2022 SCMR 523). Petitioners are behind the bars since 17.10.2024,
investigation is complete and persons of the petitioners are not
required for further investigation; thus, keeping them behind the bars
for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose to the
prosecution. - In view of what has been discussed above, titled petitions are
allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- each with one surety each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, above
assessment of this Court is tentative in nature which shall not
prejudice the case of either side during the trial.
(MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ)
JUDGE.
Approved for reporting.
Judge.
M.Azhar*