IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 352-L OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 14.02.2022 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. 
Misc. No. 8593-B/2022) 
 
Muhammad Umar Waqas Barkat Ali 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State and another 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Khalid Masood Sandhu, ASC a/w petitioner 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
Mr. Hassan Farooq, DSP 
Mr. Abdul Razzaq, ASI 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
23.11.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
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 consolidated order dated 14.02.2022 
(separate order dated 21.02.2022) passed by the learned Single Judge of 
the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest 
bail in a cross-version recorded under Sections 337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-
F(v)/354/148/149 PPC in case registered vide FIR No. 990/2021 dated 
20.11.2021 under Sections 337-A(iii)/337-F(i)/337-F(v)/337-L(ii)/148/149 
PPC at Police Station Mustafaabad, District Kasur, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that on 
17.11.2021 at about 12:15 pm, he along with co-accused while armed with 
firearms launched an attack on the complainant party and inflicted a rifle 
butt blow on the forehead of the complainant of the cross-version namely 
Muhammad Aslam. Co-accused Tahir Mehmood was also ascribed an 
Criminal Petition No. 352-L/2022 
-: 2 :-
injury at the left arm below elbow of the complainant, which was allegedly 
caused by a butt blow of pistol. However, during investigation, the same 
was also attributed to the present petitioner. The motive behind the 
occurrence was that allegedly the petitioner wanted to take forcible 
possession of the land belonging to the complainant.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for 
the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case 
against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the father of the 
petitioner namely Barkat Ali had lodged the FIR against the complainant of 
the cross-version and as a counterblast the instant cross-version was 
recorded. Contends that two brothers of the petitioner had also received 
serious injuries during the occurrence. Contends that the cross-version 
was recorded with an inordinate delay of six days, which speaks volumes 
against its authenticity. Contends that it is a case of two versions and it is 
yet to be determined, which party was aggressor. Contends that a false 
and frivolous story has been concocted in the cross-version just to harass, 
humiliate and blackmail the petitioner’s party. Lastly contends that the 
case of the petitioner requires further inquiry within the meaning of 
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, he may be granted bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the 
impugned order. It has been contended that the petitioner is specifically 
nominated in the cross-version for causing injuries on the person of the 
complainant, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that it was the father of the 
petitioner Barkat Ali, who had firstly lodged FIR No. 990/2021 under 
Sections 337-A(iii)/337-F(i)/337-F(v)/337-L(ii)/148/149 PPC against the 
complainant of the cross-version namely Muhammad Aslam and his co-
accused wherein he alleged that the said Muhammad Aslam and co-
Criminal Petition No. 352-L/2022 
-: 3 :-
accused have severely beaten his two sons Rana Amir and Rana Nasir and 
caused several injuries on their bodies. The medico legal certificates 
available on record prima facie support the accusation. It was after six 
days of the incident that Muhammad Aslam lodged the cross-version 
wherein he nominated the present petitioner. It is the stance of the 
petitioner that in-fact the complainant party was the aggressor and they 
have just exercised their right of self-defence. In the cross-version, the 
complainant had ascribed the injury on his left arm below elbow to the co-
accused Tahir Mehmood. However, during investigation, the stance of the 
complainant was found to be not true. Although, the said injury was 
attributed to the present petitioner but nonetheless, it raises serious 
question about the veracity of the complainant’s allegations. The opinion 
of the Investigating Officer regarding the overt act of the petitioner has to 
be evaluated after recording of evidence as an abundant caution. In this 
view of the matter, the possibility of false implication just to pressurize the 
petitioner’s side to gain ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. Otherwise, it 
has been held by this Court in various judgments that merits of the case 
can be touched upon while adjudicating extraordinary relief of pre-arrest 
bail. 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). In these circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of 
evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner and 
until then he cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. It is 
settled law that liberty of a person is a precious right, which has been 
guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, 
and the same cannot be taken away merely on bald and vague allegations. 
It is a case of two versions and it is established principle of law that where 
there is a case of two versions narrated before the Court, it squarely falls 
within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 to 
Criminal Petition No. 352-L/2022 
-: 4 :-
the extent of the petitioner and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail 
granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2022. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
23rd of November, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram