IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1067/2020 
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court (Multan 
Bench) dated 07.09.2020 passed in Crl.M No.4698-
B/2020) 
 
Khair Muhammad s/o Allah Wasaya and 
another 
: 
 
 
… 
Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State through PG Punjab and another  
: 
 
 
… 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s)  
: 
Mr. Saif Ullah ASC  
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the (State)  
: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman DPG Punjab  
Mr. Omer Saeed, DPO DG Khan 
Mr. Saadat Ali, DSP City Circle, DG Khan 
Ghulam Akbar SI, PS Gadai, DG Khan 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
23.10.2020 
 
 
…. 
 
 
ORDER  
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J: - Criminal petition has been 
filed for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calling in question the impugned order dated 
07.09.2020 passed by learned Single Bench of Lahore High Court (Multan 
Bench). 
2. 
 
The petitioners were booked in case bearing FIR 
No.488/2020 dated 03.08.2020 offence u/s 302/324/34, PPC registered 
with Police Station Gadai, District DG Khan.  
 
 
As per accusation levelled in the crime report, it is alleged 
that the petitioners were destroying the crops belonging to the 
complainant, which was forbidden by the complainant, resultantly it 
emerged into a scuffle, as a consequent, one Khadim Hussain was fired 
 Criminal Petition No.1067/2020 
Khair Muhammad and another Vs, The State and another 
2 
 
upon who later succumbed to the injuries, while one Murad Khan also 
suffered one scratch over his body. The allegation against Khair 
Muhammad is that he brought two pistols and handed over to his sons 
whereas “Danda” blow is alleged to Bashir Ahmad on the shoulder of the 
complainant Ahmad Bux besides causing fire shot on the little finger of the 
complainant.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 
the petitioners argued that wider net has been thrown by the prosecution 
to involve whole male members of the family. Further contends that the 
occurrence has been aggravated and the injury ascribed to Bashir Ahmad 
is not substantiated by the medical evidence. Contends that the medical 
report clearly reflects that it was a blunt injury and as such, it negates the 
version of the prosecution. As far as the role ascribed to Khair Muhammad 
is concerned, the learned counsel argued that it was opined by the 
Investigating Officer that he was not present at the spot at the time of 
occurrence. Contends that the petitioners are of advanced age and have 
no nexus with the crime alleged against them. Contends that the case of 
the petitioners is of further inquiry hence, they are entitled for concession 
sought for.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned law officer argued that the 
petitioners are nominated in the crime report with specific allegation 
however frankly conceded that during course of investigation, finding was 
given by the Investigating Officer that Khair Muhammad was not present 
at the spot at the time of occurrence whereas firearm injury ascribed to 
Bashir Ahmad is not observed by the doctor, as alleged by prosecution.  
5. 
 
We have hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record.  
 Criminal Petition No.1067/2020 
Khair Muhammad and another Vs, The State and another 
3 
 
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the petitioners are 
nominated in the crime report. According to the contents of the crime 
report, it is mentioned that the occurrence has taken place in the morning 
(ہﻠﯾو ﺢﺑﺻ) whereas the matter was reported to police at 10:50 AM. 
Admittedly, the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and 
police station is 08-KM. Inordinate delay qua time of occurrence and 
registration clearly reveals that possibility of deliberation and consultation 
cannot be ruled out. Apart from this, the role ascribed to both the 
petitioners was not substantiated during course of investigation. Ad-interim 
bail was granted to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 
01.10.2020 whereas on 08.10.2020 though Investigating Officer was 
present but he could not satisfy the Court, hence vide order dated 
08.10.2020 District Police Officer, DG Khan was directed to appear in 
person. Today, District Police Officer, DG Khan is present in the Court in 
person, he categorically stated before the Court that Senior Police Officers 
of the Gazetted Rank, investigated the matter at length and gave 
concurrence to the finding given by the local Investigating Officer. The 
concept of pre-arrest bail is exceptional, it has to be exercised sparingly. 
The purpose behind is to save innocent persons from false allegations, 
trumped up charges and malicious prosecution at the end of complainant 
party. In the salutary judgment of this Court reported as “Meeran Bux Vs, 
The State and another” (PLD 1989 SC 347), the scope of the pre-arrest 
bail has been widened and as such while granting pre-arrest bail even the 
merits of the case can be touched upon. The petitioners are ascribed the 
role which was found false during the course of investigation. The injury 
ascribed to Bashir Ahmad was contradicted by medical evidence. Co-
accused Khair Muhammad was found not to be present at the spot at the 
time of occurrence by the Investigating Officer concurred by Senior Police 
 Criminal Petition No.1067/2020 
Khair Muhammad and another Vs, The State and another 
4 
 
Officer. No recovery of any incriminating material is to be affected from the 
petitioners. Both of them of advance age, feeble and found not connected 
with the crime as alleged, even one of the petitioners was not present at 
the spot. The custody of the petitioners would not advance the case of 
prosecution in any manner. Otherwise the authenticity of the accusation 
would be resolved by the learned trial court after recording of evidence. 
We are constrained to give any finding at this stage, lest it may prejudice 
the case of either of the party.          
6. 
 
In view of facts and circumstances and keeping in view the 
sufficient material available on the record, we have persuaded that the 
case of the petitioners squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2) 
Cr.PC entitling the petitioners for the relief sought for. As a consequence, 
leave to appeal is granted; the same is converted into appeal and is 
allowed. The ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioners in terms of 
order dated 01.10.2020 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing 
fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 
learned trial Court/Duty Judge. 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad/23.10.2020 
Approved for reporting 
*Syed Rashid Maqsood*