IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ ULAHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103-P OF 2022
(On appeal against the order dated 29.04.2022
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar
in Cr.MBA No. 1033-P/2022)
Abdul Wahid
Petitioner
Versus
The State and another
Respondent (s)
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Abdul Fayyaz, ASC
(via video link from Peshawar)
For the State: Ms. Aisha Tasneem, State counsel
Mr. Mukhtiar Khan, Inspector
For Respondent No.2: 
Mr. Hussain Ali, ASC
(via video link from Peshawar)
Date of Hearing: 
27.07.2022
ORDER
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl 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 29.04.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, with a prayer to grant
post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 1330 dated 23.10.2021 under
Sections 302/324/109 PPC at Police Station Sarband, District Peshawar, in the
interest of safe administration of criminal justice.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as alleged in the crime report
is that the complainant along with his two brothers lkram and Asad was sitting
in his place of work when suddenly one unknown person while armed with
pistol came there and opened fire on them, which landed on different parts of
I
CRIMINAL PEifTION No.103-P Of 2022 
-: 2
their bodies. Due to the fire shots, the brother of the complainant lkram died
in hospital whereas the complainant and his other brother namely Asad
sustained several injuries. On 22.11.2021, the petitioner was nominated as
accused by the complainant through his supplementary statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.PC. After his arrest, the petitioner approached the
learned Trial Court as well as the High Court for post-arrest bail but his bail
petitions stood dismissed. Hence, this petition seeking post-arrest bail.
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 petitioner was not named in
the FIR and he was belatedly nominated by the complainant through
supplementary statement but no source of information was disclosed.
Contends that the description of the assailant has also not been given in the
crime report. Contends that no recovery has been affected from the
petitioner. Contends that the six crime empties collected from the place of
occurrence were found fired from different weapons. Contends that the so-
called interview of the petitioner given to a TV channel has no evidentiary
value in the eyes of law. Lastly contends that the petitioner being innocent
deserves to be released on bail in the interest of justice.
4. Learned State counsel very frankly did not oppose the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, rather supported
the same.
S. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant
vehemently defended the impugned order. He contended that the petitioner
has specifically been nominated by the complainant through his
supplementary statement. Contends that the complainant has no previous
enmity with the petitioner to falsely involve him in the case. Contends that the
petitioner himself made a statement of his guilt in a TV interview given in the
jail premises, which is a solid piece of evidence, therefore, he does not deserve
any leniency from this Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length
and have perused the available record with their able assistance.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103-P OF 2022 
MR
There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner was not
nominated in the crime report. Even the complainant while lodging the FIR had
not given the description of the assailant regarding his body structure, age,
height and other antecedents etc. However, after the lapse of about one
month, the complainant preferred to make statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner was cited as the assailant. However, we are of
the view that veracity of statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.0
requires legal analysis on the ground (i) it is delayed by one month, (ii) no
source of information has been disclosed, (iii) no tangible material has been
collected during the course of investigation, & (iv) recovery of empties of
different bore brings the case within the ambit of further probe. It has been
frankly admitted by the learned state counsel that no recovery has been
affected from the petitioner rather the six empties collected from the place of
occurrence were found fired from different weapons, which reflects that the
occurrence has been committed by more than one person. So far as the
interview of the petitioner wherein he allegedly confessed his guilt is
concerned, the same prima fade has no evidentiary value as neither the maker
of the video has been cited as a witness in the calendar of witnesses nor the
forensic test of the said video has been conducted. This Court in the case of
lshtiag Ahmed Mirza Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) has candidly
held that such kind of alleged confessionary video is not beneficial to the
concerned party unless it is properly produced before the court of law, its
genuineness is established and then the same is proved in accordance with law
for it to be treated as evidence in the case. The Court further held that with the
advancement of science and technology, it is now possible to get a forensic
examination, audit or test conducted through an appropriate laboratory so as to
get it ascertained as to whether an audio tape or a video is genuine or not and
as such examination, audit or test can also reasonably establish if such audio
tape or video has been edited, doctored or tampered with or not because
advancement of science and technology has also made it very convenient and
easy to edit, doctor, superimpose or photoshop a voice or picture in an audio
tape or video, therefore, without a forensic examination, audit or test, it is
becoming more and more unsafe to rely upon the same as a piece of evidence
 a court of law. However, we do not want to comment further on this aspect
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103-P OF 2022 
-. 4
of the matter as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties during trial. It
has been informed by the State counsel that statements of two prosecution
witnesses have been recorded. On our specific query, learned counsel for the
complainant admitted that the witnesses whose statements have been
recorded are formal witnesses and as such the bulk of the evidence is still to
be recorded by the Trial Court. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last
more than eight months. This Court has time and again 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 curtailed on
trump up charges unless the same is proved to the hilt by the court of
competent jurisdiction. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind the bars for an indefinite period till the conclusion of the trial. 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.PC. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt.
7. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into
appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 29.042022. 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
4
Trial Court.
Islamabad, the
27" of July, 2022
Approved For Reporting
iltIItt1l,I