IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.893 of 2020  
(Against the order dated 07.07.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Bannu Bench in Crl. Misc. BA No.307-B/2020) 
 
 
Haji Shah Behram 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State and others  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mian Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, ASC 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Salauddin Malik, ASC  
 
For the State: 
Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.02.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Impugned herein is 
order dated 07.07.2020 by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the 
Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench, admitting respondents to post 
arrest bail in a case of murderous assault wherein they were arrayed on 
petitioner’s complaint. It is alleged that on the eventful day at 4:30 p.m, 
respectively armed with a Kalashnikov and .12 caliber gun, they 
targeted the petitioner within the remit of Police Station Gambela, 
District Lakki Marwat, in the backdrop of an ongoing feud over the 
property; he was medically examined under a police docket same day 
when the Medical Officer confirmed receipt of firearm injuries on the 
right medial forearm as well as deltoid area with corresponding exits, 
designated as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Badiah. The reasons that weighed with 
the High Court to allow the motion are as follows: 
 
“In the instant case, the occurrence had reportedly taken 
place at 16:30 hours with a considerable unexplained delay 
of three hours. The I.O has recovered only two crime 
empties of 7.62 bore from the place of accused/petitioner 
Umer Jan, while no empty whatsoever has been recovered 
from the place of accused/petitioner Hameedullah who was 
attributed firing with DBBL shot gun. All the above noted 
facts cast grave doubt on the veracity of prosecution case 
Criminal Petition No. 893 of 2020 
2
and 
needs 
further 
inquiry 
into 
the 
guilt 
of 
accused/petitioners. As per medico legal report, the nature 
of injury sustained by complainant “Ghayr Jaifah Badiah” 
is covered by Section 337 F(ii) which does not fall within the 
prohibitory clause of Section-497 Cr.P.C.” 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to a string of identical 
criminal cases registered against the respondents has primarily argued 
that there was no occasion for the High Court to release the 
respondents on bail as the statements of the witnesses supported by 
medical evidence and investigative conclusions, squarely constituted 
“reasonable grounds” within the contemplation of section 497 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, standing in impediment to their 
release on bail in the absence of any space admitting consideration for 
“further inquiry”, a sine qua non, for favourable exercise of discretion; 
the bottom line is that the impugned order being nugatory to the settle 
norms of exercise of discretion warranted interference. Learned counsel 
for the respondents has defended the impugned order on the grounds 
that once bail is granted by a competent tribunal, exceptionally strong 
grounds are required to recall interim freedom, adding that final 
adjudication can always remedy interim release of an offender even if 
erroneous in case the prosecution succeeds to drive home the charge at 
the end of the day; the impugned order being within the four corners of 
law, particularly in the wake of submission of report under section 173 
of the Code is not open to exception, concluded the learned counsel.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 places 
an unambiguous bar on grant of bail to an accused, “………if there 
appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an 
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment 
for a term for ten years”: However, subsection 2 thereof provides an 
escape route to him if, at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, 
it is observed that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he 
had committed a non-bailable offence and instead there were sufficient 
grounds for ‘further inquiry’ into his guilt. It is in this clearly 
demarcated statutory framework that an accused charged with an 
offence punishable with a term of 10 years or above has to make out a 
plea for his release on bail.  
 
Criminal cases, invariably resting upon vastly distinguishable 
facts, do not admit space for hard and fast rules, empirically applicable 
with any degree of unanimity in every situation; in each case culpability 
Criminal Petition No. 893 of 2020 
3
of an accused is to be assessed, having regard to its own peculiar facts 
and circumstances, therefore, determination of “sufficient grounds” in 
contradistinction to “further inquiry” has to be essentially assessed, with 
a fair degree of objectivity on the basis of evidence collected during the 
investigation; wording employed as “there are no reasonable grounds for 
believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence” is an 
expression of higher of import and, thus, cannot be readily construed in 
the face of material, prima facie, constituting the offence complained. 
“Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a 
case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by 
the trial subsequently after evaluation of evidence1”. Similarly, “mere 
possibility of further inquiry which exists almost in every criminal case, is 
no ground for treating the matter as one under subsection 2 of section 
497 Cr.P.C.2. It clearly manifests that expression “further inquiry” is a 
concept far from being confounded in subjectivity or to be founded upon 
denials or parallel stories by the defence; it requires a clear finding 
deducible from the record so as to be structured upon a 
visible/verifiable void, necessitating a future probe on the basis of 
material hitherto unavailable. With the available statement of the 
injured supported by the eye witnesses, “who cannot be stamped as 
false witnesses at bail stage”3, confirmed by medical evidence. The High 
Court has clearly misdirected itself in holding that respondent’s 
culpability warranted further inquiry. It cast away the very basis of the 
impugned order. Argument that exceptionally strong grounds are 
required to cancel bail even if granted erroneously, nonetheless, by a 
tribunal competent to extend such relief, does not hold much water 
inasmuch as erroneous application of law by itself presents a strong 
ground for its annulment. Strict adherence to law is a sine qua non to 
ensure predictability of consequences of a criminal act in any civilized 
legal system; it is imperative to ensure peace in the society through 
means and methods prescribed by law. It discourages criminal 
behaviours and at the same time strengthens people’s faith in the rule 
of law.  
 
Observation by the High Court that nature of injury as “Jurh 
Ghayr Jaifah Badiah” being punishable under section 337 F(ii) brought 
                                                
1.    PLD 1994 SC 65 (Shah Zaman and 2 others Versus The State and another) 
 
2.    PLD 1998 SC 621 (Asmatullah Khan v. Bazi Khan and another) 
3.    2003 SCMR 68 (Qudrat Bibi Vs. Muhammad Iqbal and another)  
 
 
Criminal Petition No. 893 of 2020 
4
respondents’ case outside the remit of prohibitory clause of section 497 
of the Code is also unsustainable, inasmuch as, the language employed 
in section 324 of the Code unambiguously provides a punishment that 
may  extend to ten years imprisonment with a fine; it  is in the event of 
hurt caused that in addition to the aforesaid an offender shall be liable 
to the punishment provided therefor, an amendment, contemplated to 
provide monetary compensation to the victim, in accord with the 
injunctions of Islam; nature of the injury suffered by the victim and 
punishment provided therefor, by itself, do not substitute or override 
primary punishment prescribed for murderous assault. Criminal 
petition is converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order dated 
07.07.2020 is set aside and bail granted to the respondents is 
cancelled.   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
3rd February, 2021 
Azmat/-