IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 358-L OF 2022 
(Against the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 933-B/2022) 
 
 
Rana Muhammad Imran Nasrullah 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State etc 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Saeedullah Khan, ASC 
(via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the Respondent (2): 
Rana Muhammad Zahid, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG  
Mr. Asif Ali Shah, DSP 
Rana Abdul Ghafoor, SI 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal, ASI 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
23.08.2022 
 
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 14.02.2022 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to 
grant pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 701/2021 dated 
27.08.2021 under Sections 337-H(ii)/506(ii)/148/149 PPC & 440 PPC 
(reportedly added later on) at Police Station City Toba Tek Singh, in the 
interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as set out in the crime 
report is that on 12.08.2021 at about 04.00 P.M., the complainant along 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 358-L/2022 
-: 2 :-
with his son and laborers was present on his plot and was raising 
construction over it when suddenly the petitioner along with his co-
accused while armed with firearms came there, raised lalkara to leave the 
plot, demolished the newly constructed wall and extended threats of dire 
consequences to him. When the petitioner was forbidden by the 
complainant, he and his co-accused made straight fires on the son of the 
complainant, which luckily did not hit him.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel 
for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case 
against the actual facts and circumstances due to mala fides of the 
complainant in connivance with local police. Contends that the plot, which 
is the root cause of the occurrence, does not belong to the complainant 
and the petitioner is in possession of sale deed as well as a decree in his 
favour. Contends that civil litigation between the parties is pending 
adjudication and the present case is an attempt to pressurize the 
petitioner to gain ulterior motives. Contends that all the offences except 
Section 440 PPC are bailable in nature. Contends that Section 440 PPC is 
not applicable as the petitioner is owner of the property in dispute. Lastly 
contends that the petitioner deserves to be granted the extraordinary 
concession of pre-arrest bail in the interest of justice.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant have defended the impugned order. It has 
been contended that the petitioner has specifically been nominated in the 
crime report with a specific allegation of trespassing into the plot of the 
complainant, demolishing the newly erected wall and making straight fires 
on the son of the complainant. It has further been contended that 
according to the report of the Deputy Commissioner Toba Tek Singh, the 
complainant is the owner of the plot in question, therefore, the petitioner 
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.  
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 358-L/2022 
-: 3 :-
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation 
against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with 
firearms went on the plot of the complainant, demolished the newly 
raised construction, extended threats of dire consequences to him and 
made straight fires on his son, which luckily did not hit him. However, it is 
the stance of the petitioner that he is owner of the plot in question where 
the occurrence took place; he is in possession of requisite title documents 
and in-fact the complainant party was the aggressor. It is admitted 
position that a suit for declaration qua the plot in question is still pending 
adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction. In this view of the 
matter, the possibility of false implication just to pressurize the 
petitioners’ side to gain ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. However, at 
this stage, we do not want to comment on this aspect of the matter, lest it 
may prejudice the case of either of the party. It is the Trial Court who after 
recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the 
petitioner and until then the petitioner 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. All the offences in the crime report except 
Sections 506(ii) and 440 PPC are bailable. So far as ‘criminal intimidation’ is 
concerned, the same has been defined in Section 503 PPC in the following 
words:- 
“503. Criminal Intimidation: Whoever threatens another with any injury 
to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of 
any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to 
that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally 
bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled 
to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits 
criminal intimidation.” 
6. 
 
A bare perusal of the afore-quoted provision of law makes it 
clear that whenever an overt act is materialized and ended into an overt 
act, the provision of Section 506(ii) PPC would not be applicable and the 
only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act, which is 
committed in consequence of criminal intimidation. In the present case, 
the provision of Sections 337-H(ii)/148/149 PPC have been alleged against 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 358-L/2022 
-: 4 :-
the petitioner, which is bailable in nature. As far as Section 440 PPC is 
concerned, the same was added at a belated stage and the application of 
the same would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence. 
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) and Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 
2021 SC 898). 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 dated 14.02.2022 and 
confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide this 
Court’s order dated 28.06.2022.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
23rd of August, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram