IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.105-K OF 2020 
(Against the order dated 19.05.2020 of the  
High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in  
Criminal Bail Application No.131 of 2020) 
 
 
Sidra Abbas 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Faisal Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch, Additional 
Prosecutor General 
 
 
For Respondent No.2: 
Mr. Fareed Ahmed A. Dayo, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
10.09.2020 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.- The respondent, Adil Zaman, 
accused of Crime No.382/2019 under Section 302/34 PPC 
registered at Police Station Darakhshan, Karachi was declined 
post-arrest bail by the Court of first instance for the following 
reasons:- 
“Complainant Mst. Sidra Abbas has alleged in 
FIR that on the evening/night of 09.07.2019 
she was available at her house when at about 
2038 wife of PW Umer Rehan via phone 
informed her that Mureed Abbas had been 
shot by accused Atif Zaman at his office, on 
that complainant reached at spot and found 
her husband in pool of blood to whom she 
with help of her father-in-law shifted to JPMC 
Hospital for treatment where MLO declared 
the Mureed Abbas dead. Complainant further 
alleged in FIR that accused Atif Zaman had 
also committed murder of one Khizer Hayat 
on the same night. In FIR, motive of accused 
Atif Zaman behind murders was stated to be 
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 2 :-
monetary dispute amongst deceased and 
accused Atif Zaman. Per averments of FIR, 
the complainant was not present at spot at 
the time of both alleged incidents of murders, 
therefore, allegations against the accused are 
required to be ascertained through the 
material/evidence 
collected 
during 
investigation. 
After 
lodgment 
of 
First 
Information Report, IO had recorded 161 
Cr.P.C. statements of OW Umer Rehan and 
Usama, who were present at the office 
accused 
Atif 
Zaman 
at 
the 
time 
of 
occurrence, and both PWs in their 161 
Cr.P.C. statements stated that the present 
applicant/accused was accompanied with 
accused Atif Zaman rather caught hold of PW 
Umer Rehan when he beseeched for life. 
Likewise the witnesses of the incident of 
murder of Khizer Hayat namely Imtiaz and 
Muhammad 
Ilyas 
in 
their 
161 
Cr.P.C. 
statements stated that one unknown man 
had joined the accused Atif Zaman soon after 
firing upon Khizer Hayat at the spot and later 
on during Identification Parade proceedings 
PWs identified the applicant/accused to be 
the same person. The crime weapon allegedly 
recovered from the possession of accused Atif 
Zaman 
is 
the 
licensed 
Pistol 
of 
the 
applicant/accused 
and 
such 
verification 
letters of Home Department are available with 
the police papers. The company of the 
applicant/accused with co-accused and his 
presence at the both instances i.e. places of 
first murder of Khizer Hayat and subsequent 
murder of Mureed Abbas show that he had 
been in league with co-accused Atif Zaman in 
committing murders, therefore, material so 
available with the prosecution in shape of 
161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. statements, 
Identification Parade proceedings, license of 
the crime weapon in the name of the 
applicant/accused and further registration of 
FIR No.398/2019 of P.S. Darakhshan under 
section 25 Sindh Arms Act, 2013 connects 
him with the crime. The accused is charged 
with section 302 PPC, as such same falls 
within prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C. For 
the reasons mentioned hereinabove the 
applicant/accused 
has 
failed 
to 
make 
prosecution case against him of further 
inquiry, hence bail application merits no 
consideration and is hereby dismissed.” 
 
2. 
 
It appears that the said accused Adil Zaman 
approached the High Court of Sindh which, through impugned 
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 3 :-
order, enlarged the accused on bail by holding that the case 
against the accused was of further inquiry. The following reasoning 
prevailed with the High Court to come to such conclusion:- 
“5. 
Admittedly the complainant is not the 
eye-witness of the incident and she had 
lodged the FIR on the information received by 
her from wife of PW Umar Rehan via phone. 
After lodgment of the FIR the Investigating 
Officer had recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statements 
of PWs namely Umar Rehan and Usama who 
were present at the place of incident who 
stated 
that 
present 
applicant 
was 
accompanied 
with 
accused 
Atif 
Zaman. 
Similarly witnesses of murder of Khizer Hayat 
in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements stated that 
one unknown man had joined the accused 
Atif Zaman soon after firing. Perusal of record 
reveals that prosecution witness have only 
leveled the allegation of mere presence and 
nothing else against the present applicant. 
The complainant has stated in the FIR that 
wife of PW Umar Rehan had informed her 
through phone about the incident which 
means that PW Umar Rehan has relations 
with the complainant party therefore false 
implication cannot be ruled out. 
Mere 
presence of applicant at the spot with no 
specific role does not disentitle him from 
concession of bail. Prima facie, case against 
applicant appears to be doubtful benefit of 
which shall go to the applicant.” 
 
3. 
 
The petitioner who is the complainant and wife of 
deceased Mureed Abbas seeks leave of this Court against the order 
of the High Court. 
4. 
 
Mr. Faisal Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the 
petitioner, has argued that two murders were committed within an 
interval of half an hour by Atif Zaman, the main accused of the 
crime who happens to be the real brother of the respondent Adil 
Zaman. Per counsel the sole consideration which prevailed with 
the High Court to enlarge the respondent Adil Zaman on bail was 
that he was merely present at the scene of crime and that no active 
role was assigned to him, but the fact remains that the respondent 
had accompanied his brother when the first murder of Khizer 
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 4 :-
Hayat was committed as an eye-witness has stated that an 
unknown man joined the main accused, Atif Zaman, at the time 
when he was escaping from the scene after firing at Khizer Hayat, 
and at subsequent stage the unknown man was identified as 
respondent, Adil Zaman. Within next half an hour the second 
murder of Mureed Abbas was committed by the main accused, Atif 
Zaman, and he was again accompanied by respondent Adil Zaman, 
which is sufficient to show that they shared common intention. 
The counsel has further referred to 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. 
statements of an eye-witness of the crime, namely Umar Rehan, 
who stated that Atif Zaman in his presence committed murder of 
Mureed Abbas. The eye-witness further asserted that he caught 
hold of Atif Zaman’s hand in which he was holding pistol and the 
co-accused, Adil Zaman, helped to get Atif Zaman’s hand released 
from his grip. Per counsel it is an active role and sufficient material 
to connect the respondent with the commission of the crime which 
was not taken into consideration by the High Court while upsetting 
the order of the Trial Court. The counsel further argued that it has 
also been established that the pistol used in the crime was 
supplied by respondent No.2 as report on record reveals that it was 
his licensed pistol, again this fact which prevailed with the Court of 
first instance to decline bail to accused Adil Zaman was not 
attended rather ignored by the High Court while granting bail.   
5. 
 
On the other hand, Mr. Farid Ahmed Dayo, learned 
counsel appearing for respondent Adil Zaman contended that the 
petitioner has failed to meet the parameters laid down by this 
Court to seek cancellation of bail. In this regard he has referred to 
the judgments of this Court reported as Sami Ullah and another 
Vs. Laiq Zada and another (2020 SCMR 1115), Khiyal Saba and 
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 5 :-
another Vs. The State and others (2020 SCMR 340) and Nadeem 
Vs. The State and another (2016 SCMR 1619). The counsel asserts 
that since the respondent has not misused the concession of bail, 
therefore, the petition may be dismissed. The counsel has further 
contended that though in 164 Cr.P.C. statement eye-witness, 
Umar Rehan, stated that respondent, Adil Zaman, has helped the 
principal accused in getting release from his grip but such 
statement was not made in his earlier 161 Cr.P.C. statement 
recorded by the police. He next contended that other factors also 
prevailed with the Court to enlarge the respondent on bail and, 
therefore, such concession could only be recalled once misuse of 
concession is established.  
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective 
parties and perused the record.  
7. 
 
A careful perusal of the submissions show that the 
case law cited by Mr. Dayo is of no help in the circumstances of 
this case, as the petitioner is not seeking cancellation of 
concession on the ground of its misuse but on the ground that the 
order impugned through which bail has been granted is perverse 
because the High Court ignored the material available on the 
record which was made basis of bail declining order and which 
suggests active involvement of the accused Adil Zaman in the 
commission of the aforesaid offence. It should not be ignored that 
the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal, erroneous or 
perverse order to recall the concession of bail is altogether different 
than the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the 
accused has misused the concession or misconducted himself or 
some new facts requiring cancellation of bail have emerged.   
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 6 :-
8. 
 
In light of the dictum laid down in Sami Ullah v Laiq 
Zada 2020 SCMR 1115 and The State/Anti-Narcotic v Rafique 
Ahmed Channa 2010 SCMR 580, it is a settled principle of law that 
a bail granting order can be cancelled if the same is perverse. In 
legal parlance, a perverse order is defined as an order which is, 
inter alia, entirely against the weight of the evidence on record.1 
It is always to be kept in mind that in cases where the court 
granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie 
involvement of the accused in the commission of crime or takes 
into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the 
question of grant of bail to the accused, then the Court reviewing 
such order would be justified in cancelling the bail. 
9. 
 
A similar definition was relied upon by the Supreme 
Court of India in Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338, wherein it 
was held that an order granting bail would be perverse and 
contrary to the principles of law if the same was passed by ignoring 
material evidence on record and without giving reasons. In the 
circumstances of this case, there is no cavil with the proposition, 
as is evident from the record, that the only consideration which 
prevailed with the High Court to upset the bail-declining order of 
the Court of first instance and to enlarge the respondent on bail 
was that there is nothing against him except his presence which 
could not lead to a conclusion that the respondent shared a 
common intention with the principal accused, Atif Zaman. 
However, in our opinion, the alleged presence of accused Adil 
Zaman with his brother Atif Zaman, the principal accused at both 
the crime scenes where two murders one after the other within a 
short span of half an hour were committed, coupled with the fact 
                                                
1 Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 32 (Publisher: West 
Publishing Co.) pp.-712. 
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 7 :-
that both the accused are real brothers and the pistol used in the 
crime belongs to accused Adil Zaman, speaks volumes which could 
hardly be rated as coincidence Additionally, the observation of the 
High Court that the only allegation against respondent No.2 is his 
presence at the crime scene also appears to be contrary to record 
as the eye-witness, Umar Rehan, has assigned active role of 
facilitation to the respondent, Adil Zaman, both in his 161 and 164 
Cr.P.C. statements, which fact prevailed as prime consideration 
with the Court of first instance to decline the bail to the petitioner.   
10. 
 
Furthermore, no doubt that it has been settled by this 
Court through its numerous pronouncements that the courts 
should rarely and in exceptional circumstances interfere with the 
bail granting orders. Reference in this regard can be made to Mst. 
Noor Habib v Saleem Raza 2009 SCMR 786, Muhammad Azhar v 
Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 and Ehsan Akbar v The State 2007 
SCMR 482. However, one thing which is to be kept in mind is that 
in cases where the Court of first instance has through a reasoned 
order refused concession of bail to an accused in non-bailable 
cases, then the Court of Appeal while reversing such order cannot 
simply ignore the reasoning which prevailed with the Court of first 
instance while refusing the concession of bail. The Court of appeal 
of course exercises concurrent jurisdiction and has all the powers 
to review such orders by taking a different view on the same facts if 
it finds that the Court of first instance in the circumstances of the 
case has failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with the 
principles settled by this Court by unnecessarily withholding such 
concession. However, the Court while reviewing such order should 
not simply ignore the reasoning prevailed with the Court for 
declining bail. There is no cavil that discretion should be liberally 
Criminal Petition No.105-K of 2020 
-: 8 :-
exercised in favour of accused but not to an extent to render the 
provisions of Section 497 Cr.P.C. as redundant.  
11. 
 
In this case, the High Court not only ignored the 
reasons that prevailed with the Court of first instance for refusing 
the concession of bail to the accused, Adil Zaman, but also did not 
consider the material available on record that suggests active role 
of the said accused in the commission of the aforesaid offence. 
Indeed, the conclusion of the Court of first instance that there was 
sufficient material with the prosecution to connect the respondent 
with the commission of crime could not have been upset on the 
basis of observations contrary to the record. The impugned order, 
therefore, is found to be perverse and accordingly set aside. In the 
circumstances, we, by converting this petition into an appeal and 
allowing the same, cancel the bail granted to the respondent, Adil 
Zaman, by the High Court vide order dated 19.05.2020. Needless 
to observe that the trial Court would be free to decide the main 
case without being influenced from any observation strictly in 
accordance with law.   
12. 
 
These are the reasons of our short order of even date 
which reads as follows: 
“Heard the Counsel for the parties. For the reasons 
to be recorded later, this Criminal Petition is 
converted into appeal and allowed. Bail granted by 
the High Court to respondent Adil Zaman is hereby 
cancelled”. 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Karachi, the 
10th of September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
A. Rehman