IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 324 OF 2020 
(Against the order of the Lahore High 
Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi 
dated 02.01.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. 
2218-B of 2020) 
 
 
Muhammad Faisal 
… Petitioner 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State and another  
… Respondents 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner  
 
For the Complainant 
: 
Umar Aasdullah, ASC 
 
Complainant in person. 
 
For  the State  
: 
Syed Ahmad Raza Gillani, APG and 
Saeed I.O. 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
05.05.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
  
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- Petitioner 
has assailed the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973  calling in 
question the order of learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench 
Rawalpindi dated 20.01.2020 with prayer to grant leave against the 
order and  to release the petitioner on post arrest bail in the interest 
of justice. 
2. 
 
The petitioner alongwith others was involved in case 
bearing FIR No.524/2019 dated 05.08.2019, registered with police 
station Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi. 
Criminal Petition No. 324 of 2020. 
-: 2 :-
 
 
As per allegation contained in the crime report, it is 
alleged that petitioner while armed with pistol .30 bore resorted to 
two consecutive fire shots which landed on right knee and below the 
right knee on left side of injured PW. 
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
argued that the injuries ascribed to the petitioner are exaggerated by 
the 
prosecution. 
Contends 
that 
dimension 
of 
injury 
No.2 
commensurate with injury No.1 which shows that both the injuries 
are in continuation of each other. Further contends that the injured 
PW was admitted in the hospital, however, he was discharged on 
the following day which fact in isolation reflects that the injured PW 
was not suffering from any serious injury. It has been further 
argued that declaration of injury was made at a belated stage with 
the delay of eight months which speaks volume qua its authenticity. 
Lastly it has been argued that even if it is assumed that the injuries 
has been caused by the petitioner, still it do not fall within the 
prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. entitling the petitioner for 
the relief sought for. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, the injured PW present in person 
has stated that he sustained two fire shot injuries by the hands of 
the petitioner. He was admitted in the hospital for a considerable 
time where he was operated upon; hence, petitioner is not entitled 
for the grant of bail. 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record.  
 
 
As per prosecution version contained in the FIR, though 
the petitioner has been attributed two fire shots on non-vital part of 
the body of injured PW, however, dimension and locale of injuries 
Criminal Petition No. 324 of 2020. 
-: 3 :-
portray that possibility cannot be ruled out that injures No. 1 & 2 are 
in continuation of each other. Perusal of record further reveals that 
the petitioner was admitted in hospital on 19.08.2019 while he was 
discharged on the following day i.e. 20.08.2019. The statement of 
injured PW that he has undergone surgical intervention is not 
substantiated from the record. The injury ascribed to the petitioner 
has been declared falling under section 337 F(vi) PPC which entail 
as per statue maximum punishment of seven years. There is no 
denial to this fact that the declaration of injury was made after the 
lapse of eight months i.e. on 04.05.2020, during the pendency of 
instant petition before this Court. The accumulative effect of all these 
facts and circumstances create doubt regarding truthfulness of 
prosecution version. It is established principle of law that benefit of 
doubt can even be extended at bail stage. 
6. 
 
As far as the question of applicability of section 324 
PPC is concerned, undeniably, the injuries are on non-vital part 
against a motive which is feeble in nature, hence, we are 
constrained to give any finding lest it may prejudice case of either 
party, however, it would be resolved by the learned trial court after 
recording of evidence during the course of proceeding before it. 
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and while seeking 
guidance from judgment of this Court titled as “Muhammad Umar 
vs. the State and another” (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477), we are of 
the considered view that the case of the petitioner is of “further 
inquiry” falling within the ambit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Otherwise, 
liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed in 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  
Criminal Petition No. 324 of 2020. 
-: 4 :-
7. 
 
As a consequence of the facts and circumstances 
surfaced on the record, we are persuaded to grant leave in this case. 
As such, Criminal Petition is converted into appeal, same is allowed; 
the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail 
bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like 
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge. 
8. 
 
Before parting with the order, it has been made clear 
that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and 
it has no bearing during the course of proceedings before the learned 
trial court. 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad,  
05.05.2020 
Approved for reporting 
Athar