IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAUVI
(DJ) AFt
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 124 OF 2022
(On appeal against the order dated 01.02.2022
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in CH.
Misc, No. 21507-612021)
Muhammad Amjad Shahzad
Petitioner
VERSUS
Muhammad Akhtar Shahzad and another
Respondents
For the Petitioner: 
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa 1 Sr. ASC
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Shoukat Aziz Siddiqui, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR a/w
respondent
For the State: Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. P.G.
Mr. Akhtar Nawaz, ASP Wazirabad
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, S.I.
Date of Hearing: 
30.032022
ORDER
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl 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
Muhammad Akhtar Shahzad by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore
vide order dated 01.02.2022 in case registered vide FIR No. 224 dated
0705.2019 under Sections 302/109 PPC at Police Station Saddar
Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, in the interest of safe administration of
criminal justice.
S
CHrninal Petition No. 12412022 
2
2.
Briefly stated the allegation against the respondent is that he
committed murder of his real father and brother by firing upon them with
pistol 9 mm.
The motive behind the occurrence as mentioned in the crime
report is that the respondent had exchange of hot words with the father
as he was demanding share of inheritance from the property of the father
in his lifetime, which was resisted by the deceased father.
3.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant argued that the respondent is specifically
nominated in the crime report with an allegation of causing firearm
injuries on the person of both the deceased. Contends that there is no
question of mis-identity as the respondent is real brother of the
complainant and the PWs. Contends that the allegation of causing firearm
injuries is fully established from the medical record, which is in line with
the prosecution version. Contends that the respondent remained
absconder for a period of one year, which prima fade shows his
involvement in the aforesaid crime. Contends that the respondent is
involved in series of cases of similar nature and as such he can be dubbed
as hardened criminal. Contends that the weapon of offence has already
been recovered from the respondent which matched with the empties
recovered from the scene of occurrence one year earlier. Contends that
the order of the learned High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as
the grounds taken for the grant of bail relates to statement of one of the
PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.0 when she has taken a somersault after
considerable time and as such the same has no legal value. Lastly it is
contended that the impugned order is patently illegal, perverse and
fanciful, as such the same is not sustainable in law by any stretch of
imagination.
4.
Learned Law Officer concurred the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the complainant in letter and spirit.
S. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
made an attempt to defend the impugned order on the ground that the
nsiderations for the grant of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely
Cdminnl Petition No, 22412022 
3
on different footing. Contends that the FIR was lodged with inordinate
delay of more than 9 hours for which no plausible explanation has been
given. Contends that as new avenues in the prosecution version have been
opened, therefore, the respondent has made out a case for further
inquiry, consequently the bail granted to him cannot be recalled on the
basis of perversity. Contends that when one of the witness has made two
divergent statements, it becomes the case of two versions and as such the
case of the respondent is covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Contends that
the respondent had made an attempt to advance his version ) which is
contrary to the prosecution case, however, the same has not been
accredited by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation.
However, he states that the private complaint has been filed by the
respondent) which is at the stage of preliminary proceedings. Contends
that this petition for cancellation of bail is not sustainable in the eyes of
law, hence, is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and have perused the available record.
The instant case has a chequered history, which is worth
mentioning. There is no denial to this fact that the respondent is
nominated in the crime report with specific accusation of causing firearm
injuries on the person of his real father and brother, resulting into their
brutal murder. The matter was reported to the police with inordinate
delay of 9 hours but the delay in this case has been fully explained. It is
mentioned without any doubt that after sustaining injuries, the brother of
the respondent was taken to nearby Tehsil Headquarter Hospital,
Wazirabad, but due to his precarious condition, he was shifted to District
Headquarter Hospital, Gujranwala, therefore, the time consumed in
transportation cannot be used against the complainant and as such the
element of delay in lodging the FIR is fully satisfied, as according to the
record the deceased has died in DHQ Hospital, Gujranwala. The injuries
ascribed to the respondent are fully supported by medical evidence. Apart
from this, it is worth mentioning that the respondent after commission of
the offence absconded himself and thereafter he filed three successive
Cnmthal PeEl ion No, 12412022 
4
applications for pre-arrest bail before the High Court after its dismissal
from the court of first instance. The first bail petition bearing Cr1. Misc. No.
41490-13/2019 was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 1410,2019.
Another application bearing Cr1. Misc. No. 61063-13/2019 was dismissed for
non-prosecution vide order dated 25.10.2019. Lastly, the third one bearing
Cr1. Misc. No. 64967-13/2019 was also dismissed for non-prosecution on
01.11.2019. Finally, the respondent was taken into custody on 04.05.2020
after dismissal of third application and thereafter, he was granted post-
arrest bail vide impugned order dated 01.02.2022. It is apathy to point out
that the main ground on which the learned single bench granted post-
arrest bail to the respondent is that one of the witness has taken a
somersault contrary to the earlier statement made under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and filed a private complaint wherein she has advanced a story
altogether different to the story advanced by the prosecution. This solitary
ground, if taken in favour of the respondent, it will open new avenues,
contrary to the safe administration of criminal justice whereby at any
stage if one of the witness makes a divergent statement to the earlier one
bringing the case within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. then it will
transform into mockery in the eyes of law. We have noticed that it has
become customary in number of cases that each one of the witness after
settling his score with the accused party comes forward to file a complaint
contrary to the prosecution case with an intent just to frustrate the case of
the prosecution. This practice cannot be ordained in any manner. The
prosecution witness at any stage may repudiate from the earlier
statement and can make a divergent statement before the court during
the course of trial enabling the prosecution an opportunity to get him
declared hostile and cross-examine so that truth can be brought on the
record. Probably same is the situation in this case where one of the sister
of the respondent had made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.0 in line
with the prosecution version at the time of lodging of crime report but
subsequently after lapse of more than one year, she had taken a different
stance while making a statement, which is contrary to the prosecution
version with an intent to benefit the respondent. As the respondent is
--
II
--
Cthnina! Petthon No. 32412022 
5
involved in number of cases of similar nature and having clandestine
background, the possibility of fear and undue pressure faced by the
witness cannot be ruled out, as argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the
respondent that the considerations for the grant of post-arrest bail and
cancellation whereof are entirely on different footing, it is worth
mentioning that it is a case where the learned High Court while granting
bail has misinterpreted the considerations in toto and has exercised
discretion arbitrarily, fancifully and in complete disregard to the principles
enunciated by this Court, which cannot be given assent by this Court.
Apart from this, we have noticed that the alleged recovered pistol 9mm
from the respondent on 08.05.2020 was sent to the office of the Forensic
Science Agency and all the empties recovered from the place of
occurrence were found to be fired from the same, a positive report has
been issued by the said Agency. We have specifically inquired from the
learned counsel for the respondent about the stage of the private
complaint lodged by the respondent to which he informed that the private
complaint is still at the preliminary stage and even no notice has been
issued to the respondents mentioned over there, therefore, the same is of
no help to the respondent. We have been informed that several FIRs of
similar nature have been registered against the respondent. Although
learned counsel for the respondent vehemently stated that in all of the
cases, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge but no document
in this regard could be placed on record, however, it is also controverted
by the Investigating Officer present in the court. The learned High Court
did not take into consideration any of the above-said aspects of the
matter, therefore, we are constrained to hold that the reasoning advanced
by the learned High Court while granting bail to the respondent is artificial,
fanciful and without any legal justification. We are under bounden duty to
attend to the facts and circumstances of the Us brought before us and to
evaluate the same in such a manner so that no injustice is caused to either
of the party. In the instant case, the learned High Court has not given any
sticiable reasoning to bring the case of the respondent within the ambit
Cn-.l Petition Ho, 12412022 
A
of Section 497(2) Cr.P.0 calling for further probe into his guilt. In our
opinion, in the instant case the learned High Court while granting bail to
the respondent has erred in law and facts and has passed an order which
is illegal, perverse, fanciful, arbitrary. 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 High Court vide impugned
order dated 01.02.2022. The above are the detailed reasons of our short
order of even date. 
Islamabad, the
30th of March, 2022
Approved For Reporting
I[l.iiiitii,l