IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 509 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 26.04.2021 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in Cr. Misc. (BA) 
No. 190-B/2021) 
 
Akhtar Ullah @ Akhtar Ali 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Farman Ali Khattak, ASC 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Shumayl Aziz, Addl. A.G. KPK 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
16.06.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant 
criminal petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks leave to 
appeal against the impugned order of learned Peshawar High Court, 
Bannu Bench  dated 26.04.2021, with a prayer to grant post-arrest 
bail in case FIR No. 05 dated 12.01.2021 under Sections 
324/427/34 PPC at Police Station Shah Saleem, District Karak in 
the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
As per contents of the crime report, it is alleged that the 
petitioner while armed with a Kalashnikov, on the asking of co-
accused Rehman Ullah, made a fire shot, which landed on the right 
heel of injured PW Muhammad Wajid (complainant of the case), as a 
consequence whereof, the instant FIR was got registered by him. 
Petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail before the learned 
Additional Sessions Judge, Karak, which was dismissed vide order 
dated 13.04.2021. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge 
was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Peshawar High 
Court, Bannu Bench by filing a criminal miscellaneous application 
which too met the same fate vide the order impugned. Hence, the 
instant petition for leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 
petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts 
Criminal Petition No. 509/2021 
2
and circumstances of this case; that the motive ascribed to the 
petitioner is not substantiated from the record; that though petitioner 
has been ascribed direct role of causing a firearm injury on the 
person of injured PW (complainant) but according to medico legal 
report, the dimension of the injury as well as the name of the expert 
who examined the injured PW has not been mentioned, which is 
spelled out from Page 18 of the instant petition; that as per 
prosecution, the injured PW was admitted to the hospital and 
examined on 12.01.2021, whereas he was discharged from the 
hospital on 25.01.2021 but the details of the same are not 
mentioned anywhere. It has further been argued that the locale of 
injury is on the non-vital part which clearly reflects that the 
petitioner had no intent to commit the murder of injured PW 
(complainant) and the provisions of section 324 PPC are not 
attracted in this case. Lastly, it has been argued that petitioner is 
behind the bars since 23.02.2021, investigation of the case is 
complete and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation 
and on this score alone, he is entitled for the concession of bail.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate 
General, KPK has supported the impugned order declining bail to the 
petitioner. Learned Law Officer contended that the petitioner is 
specifically named in the crime report with allegation of causing a 
firearm injury on the person of complainant with a lethal weapon; 
that an empty of 7.62 bore was recovered from the spot which 
clearly shows that the injured PW was fired at by the petitioner with 
a Kalashnikov. He, however, frankly conceded that during the 
course of investigation, no recovery of alleged weapon has been 
affected from the petitioner.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also 
learned Law Officer and have perused the record with their able 
assistance.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has 
taken place in the broad daylight, which was promptly reported. As 
far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned, there are 
certain aspects of the case which require determination to arrive at a 
conclusion whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. 
It has been observed by us that the injury ascribed to the petitioner 
on the person of complainant is surely on his right heel. During the 
course of medical examination of complainant, the Doctor has not 
given any details regarding dimension of the injury. Though one 
Criminal Petition No. 509/2021 
3
empty of 7.62 bore was secured from the spot by the investigating 
agency, but no recovery of alleged weapon was affected from the 
petitioner. Therefore, the recovery of crime empty from the spot 
becomes inconsequential and does not have any legal force. Perusal 
of medico legal report reveals that the same is on a plain paper and 
name and designation of the Doctor who examined the injured PW 
have not been mentioned. As per prosecution, the injured PW 
Muhammad Wajid (complainant) remained admitted in the hospital 
after the occurrence for a couple of days but discharge slip is not 
available on the record. In Muhammad Umar Vs. The State and 
another (PLD 2004 SC 477), while granting bail to accused, this 
Court observed that a perusal of medical certificate of injured 
revealed that allegedly the accused (petitioner) fired upon the outer 
side of the right leg’s middle part of the injured Shahid Iqbal, 
therefore, prima facie, he had no intention to fire upon the vital part 
of the injured for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Even 
otherwise, the question qua applicability of section 324 PPC would 
be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. 
All these aspects of the case if evaluated conjointly, the case of 
petitioner squarely becomes one of further enquiry falling within the 
ambit of section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the petitioner is 
behind the bars since 23.02.2021, the investigation of the case is 
complete and no useful purpose would be served while keeping him 
behind the bars till the conclusion of the trial pending adjudication 
before the Trial Court. 
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has 
made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and 
admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the 
sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand) with one 
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
16th of June, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram