IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 41-K & 42-K OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the  
High Court of Sindh, Sukkur in Crl. Bail Application Nos. S-
678/2022 & S-32/2023) 
 
Jamaluddin 
Rabail 
(In Cr.P. 41-K/2023) 
(In Cr.P. 42-K/2023) 
… Petitioners 
Versus 
The State  
(In both cases) 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Zuber Ahmed Rajput, ASC a/w Jamaluddin, 
petitioner in person 
(Via video link from Karachi) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Hussain Bukhsh Baloch, Addl. P.G. Sindh 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
29.05.2023 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petitions 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the learned High Court of Sindh, Bench at 
Sukkur, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail (in Criminal Petition No. 41-
K/2023) and post-arrest bail (in Criminal Petition No. 42-K/2023) in case 
registered vide FIR No. 317/2022 dated 21.11.2022 under Sections 
324/148/149 PPC at Police Station Shaheed Murtaza Meerani, Khairpur, in 
the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioners is that 
they along with co-accused while armed with firearms launched a 
murderous assault on the complainant party. The petitioner Rabail made a 
straight fire on the complainant Kaleemullah, which hit on his left leg 
whereas the petitioner Jamaluddin caused firearm injury at the left ankle 
of Muhammad Pariyal, cousin of the complainant.  
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 41-K & 42-K OF 2023 
2
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for 
the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case 
against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations 
leveled against the petitioners are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and 
the prosecution story is not worthy of credit. Contends that there is an 
inordinate delay of three days in lodging the FIR for which no explanation 
has been given. Contends that injuries sustained by the complainant are 
on non-vital parts of the body, as such, the provision of Section 324 PPC is 
not attracted in the case. Contends that the learned High Court while 
declining bail to the petitioners has not followed the guidelines issued by 
this Court for the safe administration of criminal justice, therefore, the 
same may be set at naught and the petitioners may be granted bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer opposed the 
petitions by contending that the petitioners have specifically been 
nominated in the crime report with a specific role of firing at the 
complainant and injured PW, therefore, they do 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 with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation 
against the petitioners is that they along with co-accused while armed 
with firearms launched a murderous assault on the complainant party. The 
petitioner Rabail made a straight fire on the complainant Kaleemullah, 
which hit on his left leg whereas the petitioner Jamaluddin caused firearm 
injury at the left ankle of Muhammad Pariyal, the cousin of the 
complainant. There is no denial to this fact that the FIR was lodged after 
an inordinate delay of about three days. The only explanation put forth by 
the complainant is that firstly they got the Police letter for treatment from 
Civil Hospital and after the treatment they lodged the FIR. However, this 
explanation does not seem to be impressive, especially when the Police 
was allegedly approached by the complainant on the very first day.  
The complainant and the injured PW received injuries on the non-vital 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 41-K & 42-K OF 2023 
3
parts of the body and the petitioners did not repeat the fire despite having 
ample opportunity to do so. In this view of the matter, the question 
whether Section 324 PPC would be applicable in the case or not would be 
determined by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. As far 
as the question which requires the attention of this Court is that petitioner 
Jamaluddin has been granted ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court 
whereas the other petitioner Rabail has filed petition claiming post-arrest 
bail. As far as the principle enunciated by this Court regarding the 
consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely 
on different footings is concerned, we have noticed that in this case both 
the petitioners are ascribed the same role. For the sake of arguments if it 
is assumed that the petitioner enjoying ad interim pre-arrest bail is 
declined the relief on the ground that the considerations for pre-arrest bail 
are different and the other is granted post-arrest bail on merits, then the 
same would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner Jamaluddin 
because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would be entitled for 
the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is 
placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 
SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali and others Vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 
2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 
821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab 
and another (2022 SCMR 1424). The Courts of this country are not meant 
to send the people behind the bars rather the purpose of the entire 
judicial system is to protect the liberty of the citizen against whom 
baseless accusation has been leveled keeping itself within the four corners 
of the law. The rational behind this principle would be defeated if on a 
technical ground a person is sent behind the bars. In Sharaf Faridi Vs. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Karachi 404) it was held that “Judiciary 
has been termed as a watch dog and sentinal of the rights of the people 
and the custodian of the Constitution. It has been described as "the safety 
valve" or "the balance wheel" of the Constitution.” It was further held that 
Judiciary as the custodian of the fundamental rights has been charged with 
a duty as a watch dog to see that none of the fundamental rights of the 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 41-K & 42-K OF 2023 
4
people are abridged or taken away. This court in a number of cases has 
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 taken away merely on bald and vague allegations. 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. 
 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert these 
petitions into appeals, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The ad 
interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner Jamaluddin in Criminal 
Petition No. 41-K/2023 by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 is hereby 
confirmed. Whereas petitioner Rabail is admitted to bail subject to his 
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like 
amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
29th of May, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram