Khadija Shah bail order in 9 May case

The court's unique decision focused on granting bail to Khadija Shah due to insufficient evidence and the need for further inquiry. It highlighted the presumption of innocence and the importance of due process.

### Unique Point Decided by the Court

The unique point decided by the court in this case was the application and interpretation of **Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C.** in the context of vicarious liability and the sufficiency of evidence required for denying bail.

### Detailed Explanation:

1. **Application of Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C.:**

   - The court applied Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for bail if the case against the accused requires further inquiry. This provision is typically invoked when the evidence is not strong enough to conclusively establish the accused's guilt without further investigation.

   - In this case, the court highlighted that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements and digital evidence, did not conclusively link Khadija Shah to the violent acts. The evidence was found to be insufficient and required further scrutiny.

2. **Vicarious Liability:**

   - The court addressed the concept of vicarious liability, which pertains to holding a person indirectly responsible for the actions of others. The prosecution's case relied on the argument that Khadija Shah incited the crowd, making her vicariously liable for the violence that ensued.

   - The court decided that the determination of vicarious liability should be made after a thorough examination of evidence during the trial. This nuanced approach to vicarious liability as it pertains to the specific actions and influence of Khadija Shah was a unique aspect of the decision.

3. **Further Inquiry and Presumption of Innocence:**

   - The decision emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and the necessity for clear and convincing evidence before an accused can be detained. By granting bail and requiring further inquiry, the court reinforced the principle that detention should not be based on inconclusive evidence or premature assumptions of guilt.

### Conclusion:

The unique point in this case is the court's careful consideration of the sufficiency of evidence under Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the context of vicarious liability. The court's decision to grant bail based on the need for further inquiry and the lack of conclusive evidence against Khadija Shah underscores the judiciary's commitment to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Khadija Shah

The State, etc.

 11.10.2023 Mr. Sameer Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner. 

Mr. Tariq Siddique, APG, and Rai Akhtar Hussain, APG,

with Zahid Inspector.

The petitioner-Khadija Shah, seeks post-arrest bail in 

the case F.I.R. No.1271/2023, dated 10.05.2023, registered 

under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and 

sections 302, 324, 290, 291, 353, 186, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 

152, 149, 148, 146, 147, 131, 121, 121-A, 120-A, 107, 109, 

505, 452, 436, 427, 395, 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 

1860, at Police Station Gulberg, District Lahore.

2.

Heard. Record perused. 

3.

In the instant case, initially, the case was registered 

under Sections 109, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 186, 152, 153, 

290, 291, 302, 324, 353, 395, 427, 436, 452, 505 of the 

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 7 of the AntiTerrorism Act, 1997 on 10.05.2023. The complainant, 

Imran Sadiq, Inspector, alleged in the complaint that the 

protest took place on the arrest of Imran Khan in connection 

with the Al-Qadar Trust case on 09.05.2023 at 11:50 p.m.

The complainant alleged that the protestors turned violent 

and attacked different public and private premises. In the 

said incident, one person engulfed in flames in the Askari 

Tower, lost his life, who was later identified as Hamza 

Imran, stated to be a worker of P.T.I. Admittedly, the 

petitioner was not named in the FIR as one of the protestors

leading the protest rally of P.T.I. After that, Imran Sadiq,

Inspector, made his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., 

Crl.Misc. No.64830-B/2023

2

which was recorded by the investigating officer after 10-

minutes of the registration of the case on 10.05.2023, 

wherein he improved the contents of the FIR and introduced 

the petitioner as one of the accused leading the protest while 

raising slogans against the Government, Judiciary, and 

Army. The relevant portion of the FIR is reproduced 

hereunder: -

"دخبتم انجب ڈوییٹ ارسف اھتہنربلگگ الوہر االسل و مکیلع! اکبر رساک ر رحتری ےہ ہک ںیم 

ہعم ادس زہشا د SI، ومیس اابقك SI، آفص اابقك ASI، ااسحم اہلل 16360/C، 

اافشق 8330/C، ومیس 6660/C، اگڑی LEG/658، ڈراویئر اونا ر 

 بج ی راتہلسلسب ال اڈنی 

11:50 وبتق05.09.2023 ومرہخ ارموز ،D/10441 

آرڈر ڈوییٹ ربلیٹ وگك رکچ وموجد اھت ہک ایس اانثء ںیم رحتکی ااصنف اپاتسکم ےک ڈیلر امحد 

ارہظ حلسم اہحلس آںیشت، ااجعز ادمح وچدہری حلسم اہحلس آںیشت ا ور رمع رسرفا ز ہمیچ حلسم اہحلس 

آںیشت یک ایقدت ںیم 1000/1200 اکرانکم PTIحلسم اہحلس آںیشتو وسےٹ و 

ڈڈنےاوررٹپوكب م بدعہیلاوراپکوفجےکالخفرعنےابزیرکرےہےھتہکہیوج

دتشہ رگدی ےہ اس ےک ےھچیپ وردی ےہ۔ رمعا م وک راہ رکو ، رمعا م وک راہ رکو، اخم ریتے 

اجم اثنر ےب امشر ےب امشر رکےت وہےئ واہں رپ آےئ ا ور اسھت یہ رکسعی اٹور واعق ربلیٹ 

وچک الوہر رپ ہلمح آور وہےئ ا ور وتڑ وھپڑ رشوع رک دی۔ اب ادماد رمہایئ المزامم ےن ام وک 

روےنک یک وکشش یک وت اوھن ں ےن وپسیل اپریٹ رپ ہلمح رک دای ا ور اس دورا م ذتمرکہ ابال 

ڈیلرا م ا ور حلسم اکرانکم PTIاکللرے امرےت ا ور ےتہک رےہ ہک آج ا م وک رمعا م اخم 

رئیچنیم PTIوک رگاتفر رکےن اک زمہ اھکچےت ںیہ۔"

In his (Imran Sadiq, Inspector) statement under section 161 

of Cr.P.C., he stated that after collecting evidence from the 

place of occurrence, i.e., Askari Tower, and dealing with 

the law-and-order situation, the FIR was registered. On 

perusal of the contents of the FIR, it reveals that the 

petitioner's name was not mentioned therein, and the same 

was introduced in the statement of Imran Sadiq, Inspector 

under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the 

statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced 

hereunder: -

Crl.Misc. No.64830-B/2023

3

"ایبم ایک ےہ ہک ںیم وطبر SHOاھتہن ربلگگ الوہر ںیم انیعتت وہں۔ ومرہخ 

 09.05.2023وبتق رقبی -/3دیجبم ہلسلسب ڈوییٹ الء اڈنی آرڈر رمہاہ ادس زہشا د SI

، ومیس اابقك SI، آفص اابقك ASI، ااسحم اہلل 16360/C، اافشق 8330/C، 

ومیس 6660/C۔وسبا ری اگڑی رساکری LEG/658، ڈراویئردمحم اونا ر 1044/C

ربلیٹ وگك رکچ وموجد اھت ہک امح د ارہظ حلسم اہحلس آںیشت، ااجعز وچدہری حلسم اہحلس آںیشت ، 

رمع رسرفا ز ہمیچ حلسم اہحلس آںیشت ۔ ڈارٹک اینیمس رادش۔ دخہجی اشہ ا ور دنعبیل ابعس یک 

ایقدت ںیم 1000/1200 ےک رقبی PTIاکرانکم حلسم اہحلس

ڈڈنے۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔"

The complainant has not specifically named the witnesses 

who disclosed the petitioner's name and role during the 

protest before him. Asad Shahzad, S.I, Waseem Iqbal S.I, 

Asif Iqbal A.S.I, Ehsan Ullah 16360/C, and Muhammad 

Waseem 6660/C, prosecution witnesses, in their statements 

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not state a single word that 

they informed to the complainant about the involvement of 

the petitioner in the instant case. Instead, the statements of 

these witnesses were verbatim of the statement of the 

complainant under section 161 of Cr.P.C. regarding the role 

of the petitioner. During the investigation, statements under 

section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Muhammad Boota son of Abdul 

Aziz, Gulsher son of Laal Badshah, and Muhammad Islam 

son of Muhammad Suleman, security guards of Askari 

Tower, were recorded. They had not stated that the 

petitioner was among one of the protestors who set Askari 

Tower on fire or she was leading the protest. Admittedly, 

the petitioner has not entered the Askari Tower premises,

nor is it the case of the prosecution that she set on fire 

Askari Tower. However, as mentioned above, the role of 

raising slogans was attributed by the complainant to the 

other accused, who were named in the FIR. 

4

4.

During the investigation, on 13.06.2023, Muhammad 

Mubashar 27626/C Operator, C.R.O investigation,

produced U.S.B and six pages of script before the 

investigation officer, who took the same into possession. On 

14.06.2023, the petitioner was joined in the investigation,

and on 19.06.2023, the request for her physical remand was 

turned down by the trial court. After that, on 06.09.2023, 

offenses under sections 107, 120, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 

153-A, and 153-B PPC were added, and physical remand 

was allowed by the trial court on 09.09.2023. On 

11.09.2023, Muhammad Mubashar 27626/C, Operator 

C.R.O. (Inv), also produced two U.S.Bs and eight pages of 

script before the investigating officer, who took the same 

into possession. On 16.06.2023, Sr. Superintendent of 

Police Investigation, Lahore, through letter No.592/05-SSPInv, sent the audio/video transcripts of the petitioner in USB 

and written form to the Additional Director Operations, 

Cyber Crime Islamabad, for verification of the social media 

account (Instagram) of the accused petitioner, and whether 

the videos were uploaded from her account or same are 

fake. The request for CCTV potages made to Safe City

Lahore is also available. However, the reports are not 

available. 

5.

As far as the contention of learned Additional 

Prosecutor Generals that the petitioner, alongwith others,

enticed and motivated the general public against the 

Pakistan Army, State Institutions, and anti-state activities, 

leading to a devastating impact on the country, is 

concerned, the reports whether she made such tweets and 

same were uploaded from her social media accounts or not

is still awaited. She admitted that one controversial tweet 

was uploaded which was subsequently deleted through her

Crl.Misc. No.64830-B/2023

5

Twitter message. She tweeted and deleted it by admitting 

her wrongdoing. The petitioner, in her other Tweet after 

deleting the objectionable tweet, tendered apology through 

her tweet. The state is like a mother; one should be given a 

chance if she/he commits a mistake and apologizes. In these 

circumstances, prima facie prosecution case against the 

petitioner falls under the ambit of further inquiry into her

guilt under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned law officer 

submitted that the prosecution case against the petitioner is 

of vicarious liability. In this regard, it is relevant to mention 

here that the learned trial court would see the vicarious 

liability of the petitioner after recording the parties’ 

evidence. 

6.

For the reasons supra, we hold that the case against 

the petitioner is of further inquiry as contemplated under 

Section 497 (2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition is 

accepted, and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail 

subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 

Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the 

satisfaction of the trial court.

 (Asjad Javaid Ghural)

 (Aalia Neelum)

 Judge

 

 Judge

Announced in open Court on _____________

Judge

Judge

Approved for Reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.