IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 442 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr. Misc. (BA) No. 
976-P/2021) 
 
Saeed Yousaf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Dar-ul-Salam, ASC 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Shumayl Aziz, Addl. A.G. KPK 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Anwar Ali, Inspector  
 
For the Complainant: 
In person 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
15.06.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 687 dated 20.11.2019 under Sections 
302/324/34 PPC at Police Station Akora Khattak, District 
Nowshera.   The same relief was denied to him by the learned Trial 
Court as also by the High Court vide impugned order.  
2. 
 
As per contents of the crime report, the deceased was 
taking children to school in his Datsun car. When he saw the 
accused armed with firearms, he informed the complainant through 
mobile to reach at the place of occurrence. When the complainant 
and his nephew reached there, co-accused Abid started firing with 
Kalashnikov on the deceased from the front side whereas the co-
accused Iqbal started firing at the deceased from backside, due to 
which he lost his life. The petitioner along with the three co-accused 
also fired at the complainant and his nephew Mehmood due to 
which they received injuries. The motive was stated to be a quarrel 
which took place between the deceased and the accused.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended 
that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the instant case by 
Criminal Petition No. 442/2021 
2
the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances of this 
case in connivance with the local police; that in the FIR though the 
petitioner has been assigned specific role of causing injury on the 
injured PWs, however, the medical officer while examining the 
injured PWs has clearly opined that the injuries on both the injured 
PWs are suspected, which clearly reflects that the medical officer 
was doubtful about the infliction of the injuries as stated in the crime 
report; that though the co-accused of the petitioner are still at large 
but the criminal liability cannot be shifted from one accused to 
another; that the petitioner is behind the bars and during course of 
investigation, no recovery has been affected from him, which further 
lends support to the version of the petitioner claiming innocence in 
the case. Lastly it has been argued that the investigation is complete 
and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation and 
he is entitled for the concession of bail on this score alone.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor 
General and the complainant in person have supported the 
impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. Learned Law Officer 
contended that the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the 
FIR, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also 
learned Law Officer and have perused the record with their 
assistance.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that there are four persons 
involved in the case. The role of causing firearm injury to the 
deceased is ascribed to the co-accused of the petitioner whereas the 
only role attributed to the petitioner is that he caused injury to the 
injured PWs. During medical examination of the injured PWs, it has 
been specifically mentioned in the medico legal report that the 
injuries sustained by both the injured PWs are suspected. Even 
otherwise, there is no specification of injury caused to the injured 
PWs and even the nature of injury has not been described by the 
Doctor. We have been informed that from the place of occurrence, 
four empties were recovered but since no weapon of offence has 
been recovered, this cannot be used against the petitioner. It has 
been brought in the notice of the Court that co-accused of the 
petitioner are still at large and there is no likelihood of their arrest in 
near future. We have taken care of this aspect of the case. Criminal 
liability cannot be shifted from one person to the other merely on the 
Criminal Petition No. 442/2021 
3
ground that the co-accused of the petitioner are still at large. Perusal 
of the record reveals that one of the grounds on which the learned 
courts below have refused bail to the petitioner is that he remained 
absconder after the incident. It is now settled that an accused can 
be granted bail if the case of the petitioner is otherwise made out on 
merits and mere absconsion would not come in his way. In Rasool 
Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 SC 477), this court has 
held that disappearance of a person named as a murderer after 
occurrence is but natural whether named rightly or wrongly. This 
Court in Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 
53) and Mitho Pitafai Vs. State (2009 SCMR 299) has held that mere 
absconsion is not conclusive proof of guilt of an accused person. It is 
only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was 
found guilty of the offence. However, suspicions after all are 
suspicions. The same cannot take the place of proof. The value of 
absconsion, therefore, depends on the facts of each case and bail 
can be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merit and 
mere absconsion would not deprive him bail, if otherwise  the case 
of the petitioner is of “further inquiry” as envisaged under Section 
497(2) Cr.P.C and further no useful purpose would be served while 
keeping him behind the bars till the conclusion of the trial pending 
adjudication before the Trial Court. 
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has 
made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and 
admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in 
the sum of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand) with one 
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
15th of June, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram