IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1029/2020 
(Against 
the 
judgment 
of 
the 
Peshawar High Court (Bannu Bench) 
dated 06.08.2020 passed in Cr.MBA 
No.381-B/2020) 
 
Sajid  
: 
 
 
… 
Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Samin ur Rehman (deceased) through his 
father Gul Jawab Khan and others 
: 
 
 
… 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s)  
: 
Pir Liaqat Ali Shah, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s)  
: 
Gul Jawab Khan, Respondent No.04 in 
person 
 
 
 
For the (State)  
: 
Ms. 
Tehmina 
Mohibullah, 
ASC/State 
Counsel 
Mr. Muhammad Nauroz SI,  
Loyi Daraz Khan (Complainant) 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
21.10.2020 
 
 
…. 
 
 
ORDER  
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J: - Criminal petition for leave 
to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 against the judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed by 
Peshawar High Court (Bannu Bench) in Cr.MBA No.381-B/2020 with the 
prayer to grant leave against the order and to release the petitioner on bail 
in the interest of justice. 
2. 
 
The petitioner was nominated in case bearing FIR 
No.22/2020 dated 23.05.2020 offence u/s 302/324/34 PPC, registered 
with Police Station Razmak, Tribal District North Waziristan. 
 
 
As per allegation contained in the crime report, it is alleged 
that petitioner alongwith 05 others attacked the complainant party causing 
 Criminal Petition No.1029/2020 
Sajid Vs, Samin ur Rehman (deceased) & others 
2 
 
death of Samin-ur-Rehman and Jameel-ur-Rehman whereas Ashiq-ur-
Rehman, Shafi-ur-Rehman, Ihsan Ullah, Amin and Gul Jawab sustained 
injuries. The motive behind the occurrence is previous enmity between the 
parties. The petitioner was taken into custody by the police. He applied for 
post arrest bail before the learned trial court which was dismissed vide 
order dated 20.07.2020. The same was agitated before learned Peshawar 
High Court (Bannu Bench) through Crl.MBA No.381-B/2020 which too met 
the same fate vide order dated 06.08.2020. Hence, the instant petition. 
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel 
for the petitioner are that admittedly, the complainant is not eye-witness of 
the occurrence and even no specific allegation mentioned by the 
complainant while lodging crime report. Contends that one of the 
deceased Jameel-ur-Rehman has died of natural death. The findings 
recorded by the doctor while conducting post-mortem examination, he has 
categorically stated that no apparent sign of wound over the body of the              
deceased was observed. However GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) was 
scored to be 7/15. Contends that other co-accused sustained stab wound 
which is not specifically ascribed to any person nominated in the crime 
report. Contends that all the injured PWs sustained minor injuries. 
Contends that the petitioner himself sustained injuries during the 
occurrence but this aspect has been suppressed by the prosecution.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned law officer appearing on behalf of 
the State has argued that the instant occurrence has taken place in a 
Tribal Area however the matter was reported to the police within half an 
hour. Contends that the promptness qua recording of FIR, vanish any 
chance of deliberation and consultation. Contends that the statement of 
petitioner was recorded by the Investigating Officer as counter version and 
further proceedings were carried out in response to his version. The 
 Criminal Petition No.1029/2020 
Sajid Vs, Samin ur Rehman (deceased) & others 
3 
 
learned State Counsel however frankly conceded that solitary injury 
caused to one of deceased is not ascribed to any accused in the crime 
report. Finally argued that co-accused of the petitioner are still at large, 
therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail. 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone 
through the record. 
 
 
Although, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is 
nominated in the crime report which is lodged with promptitude. As per 
contents of the crime report, two persons were done to death whereas five 
sustained minor injuries. The mode and manner of commission of offence 
is generalized in nature. It does not specify any accused of causing any 
injury either to any deceased or injured PWs. Even the weapons used by 
the accused is not described in the crime report. The statement of 
prosecution witnesses were recorded on 23.05.2020. The perusal of 
statements of all the prosecution witnesses, it reflects that those are 
recorded in the same pattern as in the crime report.  Even during the 
course of investigation, nothing was brought forth contrary to earlier 
stance of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. As far as 
medical reports are concerned, perusal of the post-mortem report to the 
extent of one of the deceased Jameel-ur-Rehman, the doctor has 
specifically given the finding that the deceased had no visible injury on his 
person which could have been observed by the doctor at the time of 
conducting autopsy, even against the column of “cause of death” the 
above observation is incorporated. However doctor has specifically 
mentioned that GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) was 7/15 which otherwise 
shows very poor response of consciousness of said Jameel-ur-Rehman 
who ultimately expired. The other deceased Samin-ur-Rehman had 
sustained only one stab wound at the epigastric region. While the rest of 
 Criminal Petition No.1029/2020 
Sajid Vs, Samin ur Rehman (deceased) & others 
4 
 
PWs sustained minor injuries that too without any specification. The 
petitioner himself claimed that he was given beating by Gul Jawab and 
Amin. The Investigating Officer recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC on 
26.05.2020. He was further examined by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC on 
25.06.2020. Police recorded counter version of the accused however it 
has been pointed out before us that pre-arrest bail of both accused (Gul 
Jawab & Amin) nominated by the petitioner were granted pre-arrest bail 
vide order dated 20.07.2020 by the learned ASJ-I, North Waziristan at 
Bannu. The aforesaid aspect bring the case of prosecution squarely a 
case of two versions attracting provision of section 497(2) Cr.PC. Even 
during course of investigation, nothing was recovered being incriminating 
to strengthen the prosecution version. The contention raised by the 
learned law officer that co-accused of the petitioner are still still 
absconder, has no legal sanctity. It is now settled by this Court that the 
criminal liability cannot be shifted from one person to another merely on 
the ground that co-accused are fugitive from law otherwise basic law is 
bail not jail.  
6. 
 
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above 
and law on the subject, we are of the considered view that the case of the 
petitioner is of further inquiry fully covered by section 497(2) Cr.PC 
entitling for concession of bail. As a consequence, leave to appeal is 
granted in the instant petition while converting it into appeal and the same 
is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing bail 
bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of the learned trial court/Duty Judge.  
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the/21.10.2020 
Approved for reporting 
*Syed Rashid Maqsood*