IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1145-L OF 2020

(On appeal against the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 39399-BC/2020)

Zafar Iqbal, Mazhar Hussain & Muhammad Saleh

… Petitioners
VERSUS
The State etc
… Respondents

For the Petitioners: Mr. Abdul Khaliq Safrani, ASC a/w petitioners

For Respondent (2): Mr. Ahmed Khan Gondal, ASC

For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl. P.G. a/w

Mr. Qamar Abbas, ASI

Date of Hearing: 11.10.2021

ORDER

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant

petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have assailed the order dated
04.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High
Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in cross-version
recorded on 12.07.2020 under Sections 337-F(v)/337-F(i)/337-
A(i)/109/147/149 PPC (Section 109 PPC was subsequently deleted) in
case arising out of FIR No. 375/2020 dated 09.07.2020 registered
under Sections 336/337-A(i)/109/34 PPC at Police Station Saddar
Mandi Bahauddin, District Mandi Bahauddin in the safe administration
of criminal justice.
2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioners is that
they while armed with ‘sotas’ and ‘kasyan’ have trespassed into
complainant’s house and beaten the inmates, due to which the
complainant and his brothers sustained injuries. The petitioners were
booked in the above-referred cross-version. They applied for pre-arrest
bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin
and the learned Court while taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case, allowed them bail vide order dated
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L/2020
2

15.08.2020 by a well reasoned detailed order. Being aggrieved, the

complainant of the cross-version namely Abdul Rauf filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 39399-BC/2020 before the High Court for
cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners, which was adjudicated
upon by a learned Single Bench of the High Court and vide order dated
04.11.2020, the bail granting order of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Mandi Bahaudidin was recalled. Hence, the instant petition for
grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
3. At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin dated 15.08.2020 is well
reasoned and when the petitioners have not misused the concession of
bail, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge of the High Court
to recall the bail granting order while touching upon the merits of the
case. Contends that the consideration for grant of bail and cancellation
whereof are entirely on different footing and none of the consideration
for recalling the order is fulfilled by the learned High Court, therefore,
the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the
learned counsel for the complainant has half-heartedly defended the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the
complainant conceded that on merits the petitioners have made out a
case for grant of bail, which aspect was considered by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the ad interim pre-arrest
bail to the petitioners. Contends that the High Court can touch upon the
merits of the case if it finds that a bail granting order is perverse and
capricious and as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
was against the law and the facts on the subject, therefore, the learned
High Court has rightly recalled the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the record.
There is no denial to this fact that the superior courts of the
country since long have issued guidelines wherein the details of the
considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation whereof are
highlighted. This Court while handing down a judgment reported as
Shahid Arshad Vs. Muhammad Naqi Butt (1976 SCMR 360) although
found that the bail granting order passed by the High Court is not
sustainable in the eyes of law but yet restrained to interfere in such
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L/2020
3

order on the ground that there was nothing to show that the accused
had misused the concession of bail. In a recent judgment reported as
Samiullah Vs. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), this Court has enunciated
the following principles for cancellation/recalling of bail:-

“i) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous,

factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
ii) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in
any manner.
iii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by
persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses.
iv) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused
beyond the jurisdiction of court.
v) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the
smooth course of investigation.
vi) That accused misused his liberty while indulging into
similar offence.
vii) That some fresh facts and material has been collected
during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt
of the accused.

6. When we confronted the learned Law Officer and the

learned counsel for the complainant to show us from the record as to
whether the petitioners have violated any of the above-said conditions
on the basis of which their bail can be cancelled, they had no answer.
In Samiullah supra case, this Court further held that “ordinarily the
superior courts are reluctant to interfere into the order extending
concession of bail. The rationale behind is that once concession of bail
is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction then very strong and
exceptional grounds would be required to hamper with the concession
extended to a person who is otherwise clothed with free life, any
contrary action of the court would be synonymous to curtailing the
liberty of such person, which otherwise is a precious right guaranteed
under the Constitution of the country. Our judicial system has evolved
beside others the concept of "benefit of reasonable doubt" for the sake
of safe administration of criminal justice which cannot only be
extended at the time of adjudication before the trial court or court of
appeal rather if it is satisfying all legal contours, then it must be
extended even at bail stage which is a sine qua non of a judicial
pronouncement, hence, any unjustified action by the court of law
intruding into the affairs would certainly frustrate the free life of an
accused person after availing the concession of bail. It is not beyond
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L/2020
4

the legitimate expectations that in our society mere levelling of

accusation basing upon trumped-up charges is not something beyond
imagination. Therefore, false implication/ exploitation which has
become epidemic in our society has to be safeguarded by the majesty
of the courts.” There is no denial to this fact that the petitioners have
been nominated in the cross-version and FIR No. 375/2020 dated
09.07.2020 was registered against the complainant, who is one of the
alleged injured of the cross-version. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge while granting bail to the petitioners mainly took note of the fact
that the occurrence took place on 04.07.2020 whereas the cross-version
was recorded on 12.07.2020 after a delay of about 8 days, which has
not been satisfactorily explained. He also took note of the fact that in the
first medical examination of the injured, no bone fracture was observed
but in the second report it came on record, which puts the story of the
cross-version in mystery calling for further probe into the guilt of the
petitioners, and that during the investigation the narration of the injuries
by the complainant was found to be false. The learned High Court in
the impugned order did not discuss these aspects of the matter at all. In
view of the law laid down by this Court, we are constrained to observe
that the learned High Court while recalling the bail granted to the
petitioners has fell into error.
7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated
04.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The
petitioners are admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail
bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- each with two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.

JUDGE

JUDGE
Lahore, the
11th of October, 2021
Approved For Reporting
Khurram