IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 263 OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by 
the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Crl. Bail Application 
No. 2107/2022) 
 
Salman Zahid 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State through P.G. Sindh 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, ASC 
(via video link from Karachi) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch, Addl. P.G. 
Mr. Imtiaz Ali, Inspector 
Mr. Rizwan Shah, Inspector 
(Via video link from Karachi) 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari, ASC 
(Via video link from Karachi) 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
27.04.2023 
 
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 
petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Single 
Judge of the learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi, with a prayer to grant post-
arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 808 dated 29.06.2021 under Sections 
302/337-J/109/34 PPC at Police Station Gulshan-e-Iqbal, District East, Karachi, in 
the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime report 
is that on 27.06.2021, the son of the complainant namely Yusha Rizwan along 
with his wife Areen Jannat, went to three places namely (i) Greeno Juice Centre, 
(ii) KFC and (iii) a medical store and from these three places, he had some 
intoxicated thing, which ultimately caused his death. On 29.06.2021, the 
complainant got lodged the FIR against the unknown persons, who were 
present at these three places at the relevant time. On 30.06.2021, the 
Criminal Petition No. 263/2023 
2
complainant got recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he 
did not nominate anyone as an accused. On 09.07.2021, after 12 days of the 
lodging of the FIR, the complainant recorded his further statement under 
Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he suspected the petitioner and others to be 
murderer of his son. On 28.12.2021, after lapse of more than six months, the 
complainant got recorded yet another further statement under Sections 161 
Cr.P.C. wherein he nominated the petitioner to be the real culprit. The 
petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2022 whereafter he applied for post-arrest bail 
before the learned Trial Court as also before the learned High Court but could 
not get the relief sought for. Hence, this petition.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the 
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the 
actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations leveled against 
the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and the prosecution story 
is not worthy of credit. Contends that the complainant nominated the petitioner 
in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after a period of six 
months, therefore, it looses its sanctity. Contends that the USB allegedly 
containing audio recording of conversation between the petitioner and the star 
witness Nawaz was never sent for forensic examination. Contends that the 
entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and the 
same is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the 
crime.  Lastly contends that the learned High Court while declining bail to the 
petitioner has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court for the safe 
administration of criminal justice, therefore, the same may be set at naught and 
the petitioner may be released on bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition by contending that the 
petitioner has specifically been nominated by the complainant while recording 
his supplementary statement and he was found involved during police 
investigation, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and 
have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
Criminal Petition No. 263/2023 
3
 
 
As per the contends of the crime report, on 27.06.2021 the son of 
the complainant namely Yusha Rizwan along with his wife Areen Jannat, went to 
three places namely (i) Greeno Juice Centre, (ii) KFC and (iii) a medical store and 
from these three places, he had some intoxicated thing, which ultimately 
caused his death. On 29.06.2021, the complainant got lodged the FIR against 
the unknown persons, who were present at the above-said three places at the 
relevant time. On 30.06.2021, the complainant got recorded his statement 
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he did not name anyone as an accused. 
However, on 09.07.2021, after 12 days of the lodging of the FIR, the 
complainant recorded his further statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which 
he suspected the petitioner and others to be murderer of his son. He further got 
recorded his statement on 28.12.2021 i.e. after lapse of more than six months 
wherein he nominated the petitioner to be the real culprit. A bare look of the 
crime report and the subsequent statements of the complainant under Section 
161 Cr.P.C. shows that the complainant remained changing his stance. In his 
statement dated 28.12.2021, it was stated that one Nawaz Mehmood was 
contacted by the petitioner for the murder of the deceased but instead of 
arraying the said Nawaz Mehmood as an accused, he was made a witness. This 
is now a well settled proposition of law that any statement of the prosecution 
witnesses if recorded at a belated stage, it looses its sanctity. Reliance is placed 
on the judgments reported as Abdul Khaliq Vs. The State (1996 SCMR 1553) and 
Noor Muhammad Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 1049). We have been informed 
that the USB allegedly containing audio recording of conversation between the 
petitioner and the star witness Nawaz Mehmood has not been sent for forensic 
examination, therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ishtiaq 
Ahmed Mirza Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) it is unsafe to rely 
upon the same as a piece of evidence in a court of law. The prosecution case 
hinges upon the circumstantial evidence. The fundamental principle of universal 
application in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence is that in order to 
justify the inference of guilt of an accused, the incriminating fact must be 
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation 
upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The cumulative 
effect of all these aspects creates a doubt in the genuineness of prosecution 
version. It is settled principle of law that benefit of doubt can be even extended 
Criminal Petition No. 263/2023 
4
at bail stage. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ejaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 
1271), Muhammad Arshad Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1555) & Fahad Hussain Vs. 
The State (2023 SCMR 364). Although the petitioner was found involved during 
Police investigation but it is settled law that ipsi dixit of the Police regarding the 
guilt or innocence of an accused could not be depended upon as the same 
would be determined by Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on 
record. The petitioner is a young boy of 18/19 years of age and reportedly a 
heart patient. He is behind the bars for the last more than 14 months. This court 
in a number of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right, which 
has been guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973, and the same cannot be taken away merely on bald and vague 
allegations. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated 
above, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within 
the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt. 
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into 
appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted to 
bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one 
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. Before 
parting with the order, we may observe that the observations made in this 
order are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the proceedings before 
the Trial Court.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
27th of April, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram