IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL 
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 08.12.2022 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. 
No. 71061-B/2022) 
 
Abdul Rehman @ Muhammad Zeeshan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and others 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Jalal, ASC with 
petitioner 
 
(via video link from Lahore) 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, AOR 
 
For the State:  
 
Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sidhu, Addl. P.G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Nadim, DSP 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, SI 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
02.02.2023 
 
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 08.12.2022 passed by 
the learned Single Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer 
to grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 213 dated 
07.09.2022 under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/147/149 PPC at Police 
Station Shah Gareeb, District Narowal, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he 
while armed with ‘churri’ assaulted upon the complainant and gave him a 
blow on the left side of the head of the complainant.  
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2022 
2
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been contended by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this 
case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the FIR was 
lodged with an inordinate delay of five days, which shows that the same 
was lodged after deliberation and consultation. Contends that the case 
against the petitioner is false, fabricated, fictitious and based on ulterior 
motives and mala fide intentions. Further contends that the co-accused of 
the petitioner, who were ascribed the similar role, have been granted pre-
arrest bail by the learned Trial Court, therefore, following the rule of 
consistency the petitioner also deserves the same treatment to be meted 
out. Lastly contends that the impugned order is against the law and facts, 
as such, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be set at naught. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the 
impugned order. It has been contended that the petitioner has specifically 
been nominated in the crime report and a specific allegation of causing 
injury on the person of the complainant has been leveled against him, 
therefore, he does 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.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the petitioner along 
with co-accused while armed with ‘churri’ assaulted upon the complainant 
and gave him a blow on the left side of the head. The crime report was 
lodged after an inordinate delay of five days for which not even a single 
word has been put forward by the complainant. The delayed registration 
of FIR prima facie shows deliberations and consultation on the part of the 
complainant. We have been informed that co-accused of the petitioner, 
who were specifically named in the crime report, have been granted pre-
arrest bail by the learned court of competent jurisdiction. Keeping in view 
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility 
cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been involved in the case by 
throwing a wider net by the complainant especially when it is the case of 
the petitioner that the FIR was registered against one Zeeshan but the 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2022 
3
name of the petitioner has subsequently been added portraying him as 
Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan. However, we do not want to 
give any finding on this aspect of the matter, lest it may prejudice the case 
of either of the parties before the Trial Court. It is the Trial Court, who 
after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of 
the petitioner and till then the petitioner cannot be put behind the bars 
for an indefinite period. This court has time and again held that liberty of a 
person is a precious right, which cannot be taken away. Merely on the 
basis of bald allegations, the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. The 
petitioner is a young man having no criminal history and keeping him 
behind the bars with the hardened criminals would not be in the interest 
of justice. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the 
merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on 
Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The 
State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) 
& Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Taking into 
consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the 
view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit 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 and confirm ad interim 
pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 
04.01.2023.  
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
2nd of February, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram