Hafiz FARHAT ABBAS vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1509 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Hafiz FARHAT ABBAS VS State Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 395, 436, 427, 290, 291, 337-L(2), 109, 120-D, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 505, 148, 149 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dacoity, mischief by fire and explosive substance, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, public nuisance, hurt, abetment, criminal conspiracy, attempt to wage war, attempting to seduce a soldier, rioting, giving provocation with intent to cause riot, promoting enmity between different groups, public mischief, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention, act of terrorism---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Admittedly the petitioner had not been nominated in FIR for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023---Petitioner had been implicated in the supplementary statement of the complainant on the basis of tweets/audio/video clips on social media---Evidentiary value, as well as admissibility of the delayed supplementary statement of the complainant, as well as the tweets/audio/video clips on social media shall be determined at the trial after recording evidence---No recovery had been effected from the petitioner---Record revealed that the petitioner had co-operated with investigation of the case---Prosecution had yet to prove the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy by the petitioner at the trial---Apprehension of the petitioner about his arrest by the police to create humiliation and harassment despite cooperating with investigation of the case could not be held to be vague or baseless---On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the case against the petitioner also fell within the ambit of further inquiry---For the same allegation co-accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the Supreme Court---On the basis of rule of consistency as well, the petitioner was held entitled for confirmation of his ad-interim pre-arrest bail---Petition was converted into appeal and same was accepted---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner earlier was confirmed, in circumstances.

Hafiz FARHAT ABBAS vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1509 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR