IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 203 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 12.01.2021 passed 
by the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in 
Cr.Misc.BA No. 651-B/2020) 
 
 
Jahanzeb Khan 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Umer Zahid and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Sh. Muhammad Sulman, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent (1): Mr. Sher Afzal Khan Marwat, ASC 
Mr. Shahid Qayyum, ASC a/w respondent 
No. 1 
 
For the State: 
Mr. 
Anis 
Muhammad 
Shahzad, 
State 
Counsel 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Yar Muhammad, ASI 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
30.11.2021 
 
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 cancellation of bail granted to 
the respondent Umer Zahid by the learned Peshawar High Court, 
Bannu Bench vide order dated 12.01.2021 in case registered vide 
FIR No. 430 dated 28.06.2020 under Sections 302/324 PPC at 
Police Station Karak, District Karak in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice.  
 
2. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, on the fateful 
day and time, the respondent while armed with firearm fired at the 
complainant and his brother Shahzeb Khan and due to the firing, 
Criminal Petition No. 203/2021 
2
the brother of the complainant got hit and lost his life whereas the 
complainant remained unhurt.  
 
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was the single 
accused, who was directly charged for the murder of brother of the 
complainant in the promptly lodged crime report. Contends that 
there was previous blood feud between the parties, which led to the 
commission of the crime. Contends that the occurrence took place in 
broad daylight and the parties were known to each other, therefore, 
there is no chance of mis-identification. Contends that the Call Data 
Record (CDR) of the respondent also shows that he was present at 
the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. Contends that the 
respondent remained absconder for a period of six months, which 
shows his involvement in the crime. Contends that the offence with 
which the respondent is charged with falls within the prohibitory 
clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and the normal penalty provided under 
the statute is death. Lastly contends that the learned High Court did 
not take into consideration these aspects of the matter and has 
granted bail to the respondent on surmises and conjectures, 
therefore, the grant of bail on assumptions may be cancelled.  
 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 
has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail was 
granted to the respondent. He contended that the considerations for 
grant of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on different 
footings and once bail has been granted to an accused on the basis 
of tentative assessment of evidence available on record then for its 
cancellation exceptional strong reasons are required. He contended 
that keeping in view the nature and locale of the injury on the body 
of the deceased, the same could not have been sustained because 
the deceased was in a bunker at the time of occurrence. Contends 
that the complainant was not present at the time of occurrence and 
to cover this lapse, he got tampered the postmortem report and 
changed the time of postmortem examination.  
 
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record.  
Criminal Petition No. 203/2021 
3
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the respondent is 
nominated in the crime report, which is promptly lodged against him 
wherein a specific accusation of causing firearm injury to the brother 
of the complainant which resulted into his death. Admittedly, the 
occurrence has taken place on the rooftop of the house of the 
complainant and the matter was reported to the Police after lapse of 
1 hour and 45 minutes whereas the inter se distance between the 
place of occurrence and the Police Station was 18-19 kilometers. 
This aspect lends support to the fact that the matter was reported to 
the Police without any inordinate delay. Previous enmity between 
the parties is not denied. The instant occurrence has taken place in 
broad daylight whereas the parties are known to each other, 
therefore, there is no chance of any mis-identification, which further 
gives strength to the prosecution case. The locale of injury ascribed 
to the respondent is fully supported by medical evidence. We have 
noticed that the reasoning advanced by the learned High Court 
while granting bail to the respondent is artificial in nature, which 
does not imprint any second thought in the mind of a prudent man 
that the occurrence has taken place in another manner not disclosed 
while lodging the crime report. The argument of the learned counsel 
for the respondent that the considerations for the grant of bail and 
cancellation whereof are entirely on different footings has no second 
thought. However, we are under obligation to attend to the facts and 
circumstances of the lis, which is brought before us and to evaluate 
the same in the manner so that no injustice is done to either of the 
party. In the instant case, the learned High Court has not given any 
justiciable reasoning to bring the case of the respondent within the 
ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C calling for further probe into his guilt 
rather based its order upon assessment of the facts, which does not 
have any nexus with the guidelines enunciated by the superior 
courts from time to time with reference to grant of bail. In our 
opinion, in the instant case the learned High Court while granting 
bail to the respondent has erred in law and fact and has passed an 
order which is based upon conjectures and surmises, therefore, the 
same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As a consequence, we 
convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned 
order and cancel the bail granted to the respondent by the learned 
Criminal Petition No. 203/2021 
4
High Court vide impugned order dated 12.01.2021. The above are 
the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
30th of November, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram