IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1145-L OF 2020 
(On appeal against the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 39399-BC/2020) 
 
Zafar Iqbal, Mazhar Hussain & Muhammad Saleh 
… Petitioners 
VERSUS 
The State etc 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Abdul Khaliq Safrani, ASC a/w petitioners 
 
For Respondent (2): 
Mr. Ahmed Khan Gondal, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl. P.G. a/w 
 
Mr. Qamar Abbas, ASI 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
11.10.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
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 
04.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in cross-version 
recorded 
on 
12.07.2020 
under 
Sections 
337-F(v)/337-F(i)/337-
A(i)/109/147/149 PPC (Section 109 PPC was subsequently deleted) in 
case arising out of FIR No. 375/2020 dated 09.07.2020 registered 
under Sections 336/337-A(i)/109/34 PPC at Police Station Saddar 
Mandi Bahauddin, District Mandi Bahauddin in the safe administration 
of criminal justice.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioners is that 
they while armed with ‘sotas’ and ‘kasyan’ have trespassed into 
complainant’s house and beaten the inmates, due to which the 
complainant and his brothers sustained injuries. The petitioners were 
booked in the above-referred cross-version. They applied for pre-arrest 
bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin 
and the learned Court while taking into consideration all the facts and 
circumstances of the case, allowed them bail vide order dated 
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L/2020 
2
15.08.2020 by a well reasoned detailed order. Being aggrieved, the 
complainant of the cross-version namely Abdul Rauf filed Criminal 
Miscellaneous 
No. 
39399-BC/2020 
before 
the 
High 
Court 
for 
cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners, which was adjudicated 
upon by a learned Single Bench of the High Court and vide order dated 
04.11.2020, the bail granting order of the learned Additional Sessions 
Judge, Mandi Bahaudidin was recalled. Hence, the instant petition for 
grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned 
counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned 
Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin dated 15.08.2020 is well 
reasoned and when the petitioners have not misused the concession of 
bail, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
to recall the bail granting order while touching upon the merits of the 
case. Contends that the consideration for grant of bail and cancellation 
whereof are entirely on different footing and none of the consideration 
for recalling the order is fulfilled by the learned High Court, therefore, 
the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the 
learned counsel for the complainant has half-heartedly defended the 
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the 
complainant conceded that on merits the petitioners have made out a 
case for grant of bail, which aspect was considered by the learned 
Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the ad interim pre-arrest 
bail to the petitioners. Contends that the High Court can touch upon the 
merits of the case if it finds that a bail granting order is perverse and 
capricious and as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge 
was against the law and the facts on the subject, therefore, the learned 
High Court has rightly recalled the same.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 
gone through the record.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the superior courts of the 
country since long have issued guidelines wherein the details of the 
considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation whereof are 
highlighted. This Court while handing down a judgment reported as 
Shahid Arshad Vs. Muhammad Naqi Butt (1976 SCMR 360) although 
found that the bail granting order passed by the High Court is not 
sustainable in the eyes of law but yet restrained to interfere in such 
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L/2020 
3
order on the ground that there was nothing to show that the accused 
had misused the concession of bail. In a recent judgment reported as 
Samiullah Vs. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), this Court has enunciated 
the following principles for cancellation/recalling of bail:- 
 
“i)     If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, 
factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 
ii)     That the accused has misused the concession of bail in 
any manner. 
iii)    That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by 
persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses. 
iv)    That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused 
beyond the jurisdiction of court. 
v)    That the accused has attempted to interfere with the 
smooth course of investigation. 
vi)    That accused misused his liberty while indulging into 
similar offence. 
vii)   That some fresh facts and material has been collected 
during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt 
of the accused. 
 
6. 
 
When we confronted the learned Law Officer and the 
learned counsel for the complainant to show us from the record as to 
whether the petitioners have violated any of the above-said conditions 
on the basis of which their bail can be cancelled, they had no answer. 
In Samiullah supra case, this Court further held that “ordinarily the 
superior courts are reluctant to interfere into the order extending 
concession of bail. The rationale behind is that once concession of bail 
is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction then very strong and 
exceptional grounds would be required to hamper with the concession 
extended to a person who is otherwise clothed with free life, any 
contrary action of the court would be synonymous to curtailing the 
liberty of such person, which otherwise is a precious right guaranteed 
under the Constitution of the country. Our judicial system has evolved 
beside others the concept of "benefit of reasonable doubt" for the sake 
of safe administration of criminal justice which cannot only be 
extended at the time of adjudication before the trial court or court of 
appeal rather if it is satisfying all legal contours, then it must be 
extended even at bail stage which is a sine qua non of a judicial 
pronouncement, hence, any unjustified action by the court of law 
intruding into the affairs would certainly frustrate the free life of an 
accused person after availing the concession of bail. It is not beyond 
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L/2020 
4
the legitimate expectations that in our society mere levelling of 
accusation basing upon trumped-up charges is not something beyond 
imagination. Therefore, false implication/ exploitation which has 
become epidemic in our society has to be safeguarded by the majesty 
of the courts.” There is no denial to this fact that the petitioners have 
been nominated in the cross-version and FIR No. 375/2020 dated 
09.07.2020 was registered against the complainant, who is one of the 
alleged injured of the cross-version. The learned Additional Sessions 
Judge while granting bail to the petitioners mainly took note of the fact 
that the occurrence took place on 04.07.2020 whereas the cross-version 
was recorded on 12.07.2020 after a delay of about 8 days, which has 
not been satisfactorily explained. He also took note of the fact that in the 
first medical examination of the injured, no bone fracture was observed 
but in the second report it came on record, which puts the story of the 
cross-version in mystery calling for further probe into the guilt of the 
petitioners, and that during the investigation the narration of the injuries 
by the complainant was found to be false.  The learned High Court in 
the impugned order did not discuss these aspects of the matter at all. In 
view of the law laid down by this Court, we are constrained to observe 
that the learned High Court while recalling the bail granted to the 
petitioners has fell into error.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 
04.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The 
petitioners are admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail 
bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- each with two sureties each in the 
like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the  
11th of October, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram