IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1212-L OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 21.09.2022 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. 
No. 34009-B/2022) 
 
Muhammad Imran 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State etc 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Abdul Samad Khan Bisriya, ASC a/w 
petitioner 
(Both via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Nemo 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Nemo 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
01.03.2023 
 
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 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Single 
Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-
arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 160 dated 01.05.2022 under Section 
379 PPC at Police Station Shahbore Okara, in the interest of safe administration 
of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that 
the complainant had cultivated wheat crop on her agricultural land measuring 2 
kanals situated in District Okara. On 14.04.2022 at about 11.00 am, the 
petitioner along with co-accused entered in her land, cut the wheat, which was 
worth Rs.50,000/- and took away the same with him in a tractor.  
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 FIR was lodged after an 
inordinate delay of 16 days, which shows that the same was registered after 
Criminal Petition No. 1212-L/2022 
-: 2 :-
deliberation and consultation. Contends that the land, which is the root cause 
of the occurrence, does not belong to the complainant and the petitioner’s real 
aunt is in continuous possession of the property since long. Contends that in the 
crime report no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the same 
is general in nature, therefore, the case of the petitioner is one of further 
inquiry. Contends that the co-accused namely Sharif, who was ascribed the 
similar role, has been granted bail by the court of competent jurisdiction, 
therefore, following the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserves the 
same treatment to be meted out. Lastly contends that learned High Court while 
declining bail to the petitioner has not followed the guidelines enunciated by 
this Court, therefore, the same may be set at naught.  
4. 
 
None has entered appearance on behalf of the State and the 
complainant despite of the fact that notice was dully issued to them by this 
Court vide order dated 03.02.2023. Therefore, we are left with no option except 
to hear this case on merits.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length 
and have perused the available record with his able assistance.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation against the 
petitioner is that he cut the standing crop of wheat from the land of the 
complainant; took away the same with him and caused her a loss of Rs.50,000/-. 
However, it is the stance of the petitioner that the complainant is not in 
possession of the land in question and it is the paternal aunt of the petitioner, 
who is in possession of the land and they have the requisite title documents 
with them. It seems, the primary dispute between the parties is with regard to 
the ownership/possession of the land. 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. 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. The crime report was lodged after a delay of 16 days for which the 
complainant did not utter a single word. In the crime report, only a general role 
has been ascribed to the petitioner and his three co-accused. We have been 
informed that two co-accused of the petitioner have been declared innocent 
during investigation. The other co-accused Sharif, who was ascribed the similar 
Criminal Petition No. 1212-L/2022 
-: 3 :-
role, has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction. In 
these circumstances any order by this Court on any technical ground that the 
consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different 
footing would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner because of the 
reason that soon after his arrest he would be entitled for the concession of 
post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases 
reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali 
and others Vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal 
Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State 
through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424). Even 
otherwise, all the four accused have been ascribed the role of jointly causing a 
loss of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. 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 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), 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). 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 21.09.2022 and confirm 
the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide this Court’s order 
dated 03.02.2023. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of 
even date.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
1st of March, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram