IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1228/2020 
(Against the order dated 01.10.2020 
passed by Peshawar High Court, 
Bannu Bench in BCA No.45-B/2020) 
 
Sharif Khan  
: 
 
 
… 
Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State and another 
: 
 
 
… 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s)  
: 
Mr. Sher Afzal Khan Marwat ASC 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh AOR 
 
 
 
For the (State)  
: 
Raja 
Muhammad Rizwan 
Satti, State 
counsel for KPK 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
26.11.2020 
 
 
…. 
 
 
ORDER  
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J: - The petitioner has invoked 
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the order dated 01.10.2020 
passed by the learned single bench of Peshawar High Court, Bannu 
Bench in BCA No.45-B/2020 with a prayer to grant post arrest bail to the 
petitioner in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
As per allegation contained in the crime report bearing 
No.46/2020 dated 17.02.2020 offence under section 302/34 PPC 
registered with Police Station Tajori, District Lakki Marwat. It is mentioned 
that he alongwith two others while armed with Kalashnikov reached to the 
lands belonging to the complainant at 16:45 PM, in the meantime they all 
resorted to indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons. The 
complainant sustained injuries and fell down. All accused after 
 Criminal Petition No.1228/2020 
Sharif Khan Vs, The State etc 
2 
 
commission of offence decamped from the place of occurrence. Motive 
behind the occurrence is previous dispute over landed property. The 
petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the learned trial court which 
was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2020. The complainant being 
aggrieved by the order of learned trial court filed a petition BCA No.45-
B/2020 for cancellation of bail before Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench. 
The learned High Court adjudicated the matter and after hearing both the 
parties, accepted the application and recalled the bail granting order 
extended to the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2020 hence, the instant 
petition.  
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. Further contends that the 
petitioner has no nexus with the crime alleged against him. Contends that 
the petitioner is an old man, aged 60/61 years and is also chronic cardiac 
patient. Contends that the petitioner joined investigation carried out by the 
local police where he pleaded his alibi. Contends that after a thorough 
probe, the plea extended by the petitioner was accepted and as such, the 
petitioner was declared innocent by the local police. Contends that nothing 
has been recovered from the petitioner. Contends that consideration for 
grant of post arrest bail and cancelation whereof are entirely on different 
footing. Contends that all those consideration were not taken into account 
by the learned High Court while recalling the order passed by the learned 
trial court. Lastly contends that the name of the petitioner was placed in 
column No.02 of the report u/s 173 Cr.PC hence he is entitled for the 
concession of bail on this score alone.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant 
argued that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report. The offence 
 Criminal Petition No.1228/2020 
Sharif Khan Vs, The State etc 
3 
 
charged against the petitioner entails capital punishment. Contends that 
the ipse dixit of the police is of no avail to the petitioner at this stage. 
Learned High Court has recalled the order on strong foundation and any 
interference by this Court would prejudice the case of the prosecution. 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone 
through the record. 
 
Undeniably, the petitioner is nominated in the crime report as 
one of the assailant besides two others who resorted to indiscriminate 
firing. In response to the accusation, the petitioner surrendered himself 
before the local police and pleaded his innocence while raising plea of 
alibi. The Investigating Officer in order to verify the plea raised by the 
petitioner, investigated the matter at length and finally came to the 
conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of 
occurrence. As a consequent, he was declared innocent while placing his 
name in the column No.02 of the report u/s 173 Cr.PC otherwise the 
deceased sustained two injuries whereas while lodging crime report, the 
complainant has assigned allegation against three persons who indulged 
into indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons. Contradiction 
regarding the number of assailant and injuries sustained by the deceased 
was also considered by the Investigating Officer. It is also an admitted fact 
that the allegation against all of the accused persons was generalized in 
nature and there was no specification of injury attributed to anyone of the 
assailants. These aspects were taken into consideration by the learned 
trial court while granting post arrest bail to the petitioner which order of the 
learned trial court was challenged and ultimately it was recalled by the 
learned High Court. The crux of the arguments advanced by the defence 
counsel relates to that the learned High Court has altogether ignored 
principles enunciated governing for grant of bail and cancellation whereof 
 Criminal Petition No.1228/2020 
Sharif Khan Vs, The State etc 
4 
 
as enunciated by the superior courts from time to time. The rationale 
behind said principle can be gauged from a salutary judgment titled as 
Tariq Bashir and 05 others Versus The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Para 
No.09 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: - 
“9. The consideration for the grant of bail and for cancellation 
of the same are altogether different. Once the bail is granted 
by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and 
exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation 
thereof. To deprive a person on post arrest bail of the liberty 
is a most serious step to be taken. There is no legal 
compulsion to cancel the bail of the accused who allegedly 
has committed crime punishable with death, imprisonment 
for life or imprisonment for ten years”. 
 
In a recent reported judgment titled as “Sami Ullah and another Vs, Laiq 
Zada and other” (2020 SCMR 1115) handed down by this Court has 
reiterated the same principles which are reproduced as under: - 
i) 
If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, 
factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of 
justice. 
ii) 
That the accused has misused the concession of bail 
in any manner. 
iii) 
That accused has tried to hamper prosecution 
evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution 
witnesses. 
iv) 
That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused 
beyond the jurisdiction of court. 
v) 
That the accused has attempted to interfere with the 
smooth course of investigation. 
vi) 
That accused misused his liberty while indulging into 
similar offence. 
vii) 
That some fresh facts and material has been 
collected during the course of investigation which 
tends to establish guilt of the accused.  
 
 Criminal Petition No.1228/2020 
Sharif Khan Vs, The State etc 
5 
 
Ordinarily the superior courts are hesitant to interfere into the order 
extending concession of bail; rather they have shown reluctance to 
intervene in such like matters. This very aspect was dealt by this Court in 
a judgment reported as Shahid Arshad Versus Muhammad Naqi Butt 
and 02 others (1976 SCMR 360). Though this Court was not pleased with 
the order passed by the learned single bench of the High Court however 
they refrain to exercise the power on this very ground which is reproduced 
as under: - 
“In these circumstances although we are not happy about 
the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High 
Court, we do not think it advisable to interfere with his order 
at this stage. If at any time any one of the said two 
respondents misuses the privilege of bail it will be open to 
the petitioner to approach the High Court for cancellation of 
bail.” 
The intent behind is that once concession of bail is granted by a court of 
competent jurisdiction then very strong and exceptional grounds would be 
required to hamper with the concession extended to an accused who is 
otherwise clothed with free life, as a consequent of concession and if any 
view taken by the court it would be synonymous to curtailing the liberty of 
said accused prior to completion of trial, which otherwise is a precious 
right guaranteed under the Constitution of the country.  
6. 
 
In view the facts and circumstances narrated above and law 
on the subject, we are of the considered view that learned Single Bench 
has erred in appreciation of law on the subject while recalling the bail 
granting order passed by the learned trial court hence, the same is set at 
naught, as a consequent we are of the opinion that the case of the 
petitioner is of further inquiry fully covered under section 497(2) Cr.PC 
entitling for concession of bail. As a consequence, leave to appeal is 
 Criminal Petition No.1228/2020 
Sharif Khan Vs, The State etc 
6 
 
granted in the instant petition while converting it into appeal and the same 
is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing 
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two surety in the like amount to 
the satisfaction of the learned trial court/Duty Judge. 
  
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad/26.11.2020 
Approved for reporting/B-III 
Syed Rashid Maqsood