IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
MR. JUSTICE SHAHID WAHEED 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1442 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 
60863-B/2022) 
 
Muhammad Tanveer etc 
 
 
… Petitioners 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Salman Mansoor, ASC a/w petitioners 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
Mr. Hassan Farooq, DSP 
Mr. Sadiq, SI 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
01.12.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition under 
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the 
petitioners have assailed the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned 
Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant 
pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 391 dated 30.08.2022 under 
Section 440 PPC at Police Station Raja Jang, District Kasur, in the interest of 
safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that 
the complainant had cultivated the crop of mint in his land. On the fateful day 
and time, the petitioners along with another co-accused entered in his land 
and plowed and destroyed his entire crop and caused him a loss of 
Rs.125,000/-.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel for 
the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case against 
the actual facts and circumstances due to mala fides of the complainant in 
Criminal Petition No. 1442-L/2022 
-: 2 :-
connivance with local police. Contends that the land, which is the root cause of 
the occurrence, does not belong to the complainant and the petitioners are in 
continuous possession of the property since long. Contends that civil litigation 
over the ownership/title of the property between the parties is pending 
adjudication and the present case is an attempt to pressurize the petitioners 
to gain ulterior motives. Contends that Section 440 PPC is not applicable as the 
petitioners are owners of the property in dispute. Lastly contends that the 
petitioners deserve to be granted the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest 
bail in the interest of justice. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the 
impugned order. It has been contended that the petitioners are specifically 
nominated in the crime report with a specific allegation of destroying the 
standing crop of the complainant, therefore, they do not deserve any leniency 
by this Court. Further contends that the petitioners filed successive bail 
applications before the learned High Court, which is not admissible under the 
law.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation against 
the petitioners is that they plowed and destroyed the standing crop of mint 
from the land of the complainant and caused him a loss of Rs.125,000/-. 
However, it is the stance of the petitioners that the petitioners’ party is owner 
of the land in question where the occurrence took place; they are in 
possession of requisite title documents and in-fact the complainant party was 
the aggressor. It is admitted position that a civil suit for declaration qua the 
land in question is still pending adjudication before the court of competent 
jurisdiction, which was filed about one year earlier to lodging of the instant 
FIR. In this view of the matter, the possibility of false implication just to 
pressurize the petitioners’ side to gain ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. 
However, at this stage, we do not want to comment on this aspect of the 
matter, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the party. It is the Trial Court 
who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt of the 
Criminal Petition No. 1442-L/2022 
-: 3 :-
petitioners and as to whether Section 440 PPC is applicable or not. Even 
otherwise, all the six petitioners have been ascribed the role of jointly causing 
a loss of Rs.125,000/- to the complainant. It is settled law 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. The petitioners had earlier filed Crl. 
Misc. No. 59705-B/2022 seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail before the learned 
High Court, which was dismissed due to non-appearance of the petitioners on 
03.10.2022. However, we have been informed that on that day, the petitioners 
got late but their counsel had duly informed the court. When the same was 
dismissed, the petitioners filed the second bail petition on the same day, 
which has been dismissed vide impugned order. It is now established that 
while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by 
the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), 
Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State 
(PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). 
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are 
of the view that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the ambit of 
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into their guilt. 
 
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into 
appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 and confirm 
the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide this Court’s order 
dated 24.11.2022. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
1st of December, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram