IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.662 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 22.5.2017 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan 
in Crl.Misc. No.2593-B/2017) 
 
 
Muhammad Tanveer 
Petitioner 
Versus 
The State and another   
Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner 
: 
Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Toor, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the State 
: 
Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sidhu, APG Pb. 
Muhammad Ijaz, ASI 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
22-08-2017 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— The petitioner was 
booked in Crime No.902 dated 19.10.2016, registered at Police 
Station Mumtazabad, Multan u/Ss. 381-A/411 PPC. He was 
refused grant of bail by the Courts below therefore, he seeks leave 
to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan 
Bench, Multan dated 22.5.2017. 
2. 
  
The allegations against the petitioner are that, Usman 
Waseem the complainant parked his CD-70 Honda Motorbike 
bearing  Registration No.MNP-7713 near Doctor Zaheer’s clinic and 
when he returned after getting medicines from the clinic, he found 
the motorbike missing then, he got registered the case against 
unknown accused.  
Crl.P. 662 of 2017 
2 
3. 
  
At a subsequent stage, allegedly, the said motorbike 
was recovered from the house of the petitioner thus, he was 
implicated in the case.  
4. 
  
None has witnessed the lifting of the motorbike and no 
evidence to that effect is available on record, therefore, the 
insertion of section 381-A PPC appears not only unjustified but 
also speaks about mala fide  of the police. Whether in the peculiar 
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted 
u/s 381-A PPC or 411 PPC, is a debatable question to which the 
Trial Court shall give due consideration, being a borderline case 
and when none of the two offences are punishable with 
imprisonment falling within the prohibitory limb of section of 497 
Cr.P.C then, refusing to grant bail to the petitioner would be highly 
unjustified.  
5. 
  
The High Court and the Trial Court refused to grant 
bail to the petitioner on the ground that he was involved in some 
other cases of the same nature, without taking care that what was 
the final result of those, because today we are provided additional 
documents where in all those cases the petitioner has been 
granted bail.  
6. 
  
We are shocked and disturbed to observe that in cases 
of this nature, not falling within the prohibition contained in 
section 497 Cr.P.C, invariably grant of bail is refused on flimsy 
grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, 
particularly accused persons charged for such offences are 
unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is 
heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in 
this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like 
Crl.P. 662 of 2017 
3 
petitions. This phenomenon is growing tremendously, thus, cannot 
be lightly ignored as precious time of the Court is wasted in 
disposal of such petitions. This Court is purely a constitutional 
Court to deal with intricate questions of law and Constitution and 
to lay down guiding principle for the Courts of the country where 
law points require interpretation. 
7. 
  
The Supreme Court regulating the grant or refusal of 
bail has since long laid down binding and guiding principles 
however, the principle in two cases, out of many are directly 
attracted to the present case, are mentioned herein once again. In 
the case of Mansha Khan v. The State (1977 SCMR 449) it was held 
as follows:- 
“— S.497 Crl.P.C. read with section 325/34 PPC— Grievous 
hurt – Bail – Offence u/s 325 PPC (repealed) being 
punishable with 7 years R.I. is not one of such offences 
where bail is to be refused by reason of prohibition 
contained in section 497 Cr.P.C.— held, bail in such cases, 
hence, not to be refused merely because of offence being 
non-bailable— Any strong reason being absent to refuse 
bail, Courts below, held, not properly exercised their 
discretion in refusing bail on basis of number of injuries 
suffered by victim of attack.” 
8. 
  
In the case of Tariq Bashir V. The State (PLD 1995 
SC 34) this Court has taken notice of stock of prevailing 
circumstances where under-trial prisoners are sent to judicial 
lock-up without releasing them on bail in non-bailable offences 
punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years. It was held 
that “bail in such offences shall not be refused.” This Court took 
further pains by reproducing the entire provision of section 497 
Cr.P.C. and further held that “grant of bail in such offences is a 
rule and refusal shall be an exception, for which cogent and 
Crl.P. 662 of 2017 
4 
convincing reasons should be recorded.” While elaborating 
exceptions, albeit it was mentioned by this Court that if there is a 
danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on 
bail, then grant of bail may be refused like the two Courts below in 
this case have held but it was further elaborated that such opinion 
of the Court shall not be founded on mere apprehension and self 
assumed factors but the same must be supported by cogent 
reasons and material available on record and not to be based on 
surmises and artificial or weak premise.  
9. 
  
Even otherwise to ensure that the accused may not 
repeat the same offence, if released on bail, sufficient surety bonds 
shall be obtained through reliable sureties besides the legal 
position that repetition of the same offence would disentitle the 
accused to stay at large as bail granting order may be recalled in 
that event, therefore, such a ground should not be an absolute bar 
in the way of grant of bail.  
10. 
  
There is a sky high difference between jail life and free 
life. If the accused person is ultimately acquitted in such cases 
then, no kind of compensation would be sufficient enough to repair 
the wrong caused to him due to his incarceration.  
11. 
  
It is settled principle of law that once the Legislature 
has conferred discretion on the Court to exercise jurisdiction in 
particular category of offences without placing any prohibition on 
such discretion then, the Court shall not import to the provision of 
law, reasons or factors alien thereto and not specifically mentioned 
in the Statute.  
12. 
  
Today every prison is accommodating convicted and 
under-trial prisoners more than double of its capacity and allied 
Crl.P. 662 of 2017 
5 
facilities besides the State authorities are involved on daily basis in 
transporting such under-trial prisoners from the prisons to the 
Court premises on every date of hearing, involving risk and extra 
expenditures from the public exchequer while on the other hand 
the dependent family members, especially the school going 
children of the under-trial prisoners charged for such offences are 
left without proper care and supervision of the father or mother 
when their parents are sent to jail, therefore, their academic career 
is always at stake and they are tempted and persuaded to indulge 
in unsocial or anti-social activities ultimately landing them in the 
field of crimes, which is not good for the society at large.  
13. 
  
Once this Court has held in categorical terms that 
grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of 
section 497 Cr.P.C. shall be a rule and refusal shall be an 
exception then, the Courts of the country should follow this 
principle in its letter and spirit because principles of law 
enunciated by this Court are constitutionally binding on all Courts 
throughout the country including the Special Tribunals and 
Special Courts.  
14. 
  
Although in some special laws there are specific 
provisions, limiting the scope of section 497 Cr.P.C. however, this 
Court in many reported cases has laid down binding principles 
that the provisions of section 497 Cr.P.C. shall not be ignored even 
in those cases and the guiding provisions/principles given therein 
shall always be kept in mind while considering the grant or refusal 
of bail.  
 
In this regard the case of The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah 
(1992 SCMR 2192) and the famous case of Khan Asfandyar 
Crl.P. 662 of 2017 
6 
Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607) 
are much relevant, where principle of section 497 Cr.P.C. was held 
to be applicable even to such cases of-course subject to slight 
limitation.  
15. 
  
We expect the Courts below to adhere to these binding 
principles in future and not to act mechanically in the matter of 
granting or refusal of bail because liberty of citizen is involved in 
such matters, therefore, same should not be decided in vacuum 
and without proper judicial approach. 
16. 
  
Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and 
the same is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail in the sum of 
twenty thousands rupees (Rs.20,000/-) with one surety to the 
satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate. In case the 
bailbonds are attested by the Duty Magistrate then, it shall be 
forwarded to the Trial Court to be placed on the judicial file for 
future course of action.  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the   
22nd August, 2017 
Saeed /- 
 
 
 
“Approved for reporting’