IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 287 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. 
Misc. No. 322-B/2022) 
 
Malik Muhammad Tahir 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Talat Mehmood Zaidi, ASC 
 
For the Respondent (2): 
Malik Jawwad Khalid, ASC 
 
For the State:  
 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Kainat Azhar, ASP 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Asif, I.O.  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
22.09.2022 
 
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 22.02.2022 passed by the learned 
Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench with a prayer to 
grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 1314 dated 03.09.2021 
under Sections 420/468/471/406/489-F PPC at Police Station Airport, 
Rawalpindi, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
The prosecution story as unveiled in the crime report is that the 
complainant, an overseas Pakistani, wanted to purchase agricultural land. 
The petitioner offered him his land and ultimately an agreement to sell was 
executed between the parties. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 4.40 
million through cheque and bank draft to the petitioner. The remaining price 
of the land was to be paid through two residential and one commercial plot 
situated in Behria Enclave, Islamabad, which were in the name of the 
complainant. The complainant got transferred both the residential plots in 
the name of the persons suggested by the petitioner. At the time of the said 
transfer, the petitioner presented title documents of the agricultural land but 
Criminal Petition No. 287/2022 
2
eventually took them back. After the complainant got transferred his plots, 
the petitioner started using delaying tactics and did not transfer the land in 
the name of the complainant. Subsequently, it was disclosed that the 
agricultural land is not in the name of the petitioner. The cheque amounting 
to Rs.2.60 million issued by the petitioner towards transfer fee was also 
dishonoured due to insufficient funds.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been contended by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this 
case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the whole 
prosecution case is based on surmises and conjectures. Contends that the 
offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner 
is entitled for the concession of bail. Contends that the impugned order is 
based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and the learned High Court 
misinterpreted the law on the subject. Lastly contends that the accusation 
against the petitioner requires further probe, as such, the case against him 
squarely falls within the purview of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further 
inquiry into his guilt. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant has defended the impugned order declining bail 
to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has deprived the 
complainant not only of huge amount but also of two valuable residential 
plots, 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.  
 
 
Precisely stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he 
entered into an agreement to sell his immovable agricultural land with the 
complainant. The complainant not only paid an amount of Rs.4.40 million to 
him but as per the agreed terms, he got transferred two residential plots 
situated in Behria Enclave, Islamabad, in the name of the persons suggested 
by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not mutate the land in favour 
of the complainant on account of deficiency in title and issued him a cheque 
amounting to Rs.2.60 million towards transfer fee but the same could not be 
Criminal Petition No. 287/2022 
3
encashed and got dishonoured. It has come on the record that during 
investigation, it was found that the petitioner did not have any land, which 
could be transferred in the name of the complainant. It also transpired that 
the petitioner sold two residential plots of the complainant to Masood and 
Junaid and received the sale consideration. The evidence also reflects that 
the amount of Rs.4.40 million was received by the petitioner in his bank 
account. On the previous dates of hearing, the petitioner showed his 
willingness to refund the money that he owes to the complainant. Learned 
counsel for the petitioner was directed to seek instructions of the petitioner 
as to how and when he would refund the money. Ms. Kainat Azhar, ASP, was 
also directed to facilitate the settlement. We have been informed that 
although the petitioner had promised that as a part payment he would return 
Rs.2.0/- million to the complainant but now he is not inclined to return back 
the money to the complainant. Although the offences under Section 
406/468/489-F PPC do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 
Cr.P.C but this principle is not absolute, rather it depends upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case. Admittedly the complainant is an overseas 
Pakistani national, who has been deprived of his wealth, hence, it casts a 
heavy duty upon the courts to provide him safeguard within the limits of law. 
There is sufficient material oral & documentary available on the record to 
establish that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of 
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt. The learned 
High Court has passed a well reasoned order to which no exception can be 
taken.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition having no 
merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
22nd of September, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram