IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1255 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order 22.10.2021 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 40770-
B/2021) 
 
Muhammad Kashif Iqbal 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mian Ismat Ullah, ASC a/w petitioner 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
Mr. Tausif, DSP 
Mr. Zubair, ASI 
 
 
For Respondent (2): 
Mr. Munawar Iqbal Duggal, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
12.01.2022 
 
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 petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.10.2021 
passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, 
with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 
868 dated 26.05.2021 under Sections 420/468/471 PPC at Police 
Station Madina Town, District Faisalabad, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the complainant 
and the petitioner had a joint bank account. The allegation against the 
petitioner is that he dishonestly made forged signatures of the 
complainant on a cheque and issued the said cheque to his co-accused, 
which was presented to bank but it was declined due to insufficient 
funds and thus committed cheating and fraud.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel 
for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the 
Criminal Petition No. 1255/2021 
-: 2 :-
present case against the actual facts and circumstances due to mala 
fides of the complainant in connivance with local police. Contends that 
the petitioner neither handed over the disputed cheque to the co-
accused nor he was a beneficiary of the same. Contends that it was 
the complainant who himself issued the cheque to the co-accused 
against some transactions as the cheque book was in his own custody. 
Contends that no forensic test has been conducted to ascertain the 
authenticity of disputed signatures of the complainant. Lastly contends 
that the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted post-arrest bail 
by the learned Magistrate, therefore, following the rule of consistency 
the petitioner also deserves to be granted the concession of bail.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the 
learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner is 
specifically nominated in the crime report with a specific role of 
committing fraud and cheating. They submitted that the extraordinary 
concession of pre-arrest bail is meant for innocent persons but as there 
are no such circumstances available in this case, therefore, the same 
relief may not be granted to the petitioner.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the petitioner and 
the complainant were maintaining a joint bank account. The allegation 
against the petitioner is that he made forged signatures of the 
complainant on a cheque and issued the said cheque to his co-accused. 
When the cheque was presented to the bank, it returned the same due 
to insufficient funds and mismatch of the signatures of the 
complainant. It is the case of the petitioner that the cheque book was in 
the custody of the complainant; ten cheques from the same cheque 
book have already been encashed at the behest of the complainant 
and the petitioner never issued the disputed cheque. On our specific 
query, we have been informed that no forensic test of the alleged 
forged signatures of the complainant has been conducted so far to 
ascertain as to whether the signatures are forged or the real one. The 
amount for which the cheque was given has not been mentioned in the 
crime report. It is an admitted fact that the co-accused of the petitioner 
has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction 
Criminal Petition No. 1255/2021 
-: 3 :-
which remains unchallenged by the complainant. Any order by this 
Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail 
and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only 
limited upto the arrest of the petitioner because of the reason that soon 
after his arrest he would become entitled for the concession of post-
arrest bail on the plea of consistency. In the case reported as 
Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), 
the 
respondent was allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court 
while the other similarly placed co-accused were granted bail after 
arrest. The complainant did not challenge the grant of bail after arrest 
to the similarly placed co-accused and sought cancellation of pre-arrest 
bail granted to the respondent before this Court by filing a criminal 
petition but this Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail by 
holding that “no useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar 
Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because 
after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that 
similarly placed other accused are already on bail.” Keeping in view all 
the facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner squarely falls 
within the purview of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry 
into his guilt. 
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order dated 
22.10.2021 passed by the learned High Court and confirm the ad-
interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court vide order dated 
03.12.2021.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
12th of January, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram