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. 537 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 07.05.2021 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Crl. Misc. No. 
2846-B/2021) 
 
Sajid Hussain @ Joji 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another  
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Kh. Qaiser Butt, ASC a/w petitioner 
 
 
 
For the State: 
 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Jam Saleem, DSP 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
06.09.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered 
vide FIR No. 678/2019 under Section 302 PPC at Police Station Old 
Kotwali, Multan. The same relief was denied to him by the learned 
Trial Court vide order dated 21.04.2021 and was also declined by the 
learned High Court vide impugned order dated 07.05.2021. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that on 
24.11.2019, the complainant and the petitioner went to see Malik 
Amir Sultan at his house. At about 01.00 am, one Haroon while 
armed with pistol came at the residence of the said Amir Sultan and 
made two fire shots with his pistol, one of which landed on the right 
thigh of the said Amir Sultan. The said Amir Sultan was evacuated 
for medical treatment in injured condition but he succumbed to the 
injuries on his way to hospital. Initially, the petitioner was cited as a 
prosecution witness in the FIR but subsequently on the statement of 
Mst. Masooma Bibi, real sister of the deceased, he was arrayed as an 
accused in the case.  
Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 
2
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
argued that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due 
to mala fides of the complainant in connivance with the local police; 
that primarily the petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness in the 
crime report and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was 
recorded by the Investigating Officer in this regard; that the 
prosecution has taken a somersault after lapse of considerable time 
while introducing Mst. Masooma Bibi, who got recorded her statement 
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she leveled the allegations of 
causing two successive fire shots on the person of the deceased to the 
petitioner; that the delayed statement of the prosecution witnesses 
introduced at a belated stage leaves sufficient room to extend the 
relief sought for; that the whole prosecution case is based upon bald 
statements of the two prosecution witnesses, which prima facie seem 
to be made after due deliberation and consultation, hence, the same 
do not strengthen the prosecution case in any manner.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General 
has defended the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. He 
mainly submitted that the petitioner was specifically nominated by 
Mst. Masooma Bibi with a specific role of causing successive fire 
shots at the person of the deceased; that she is a natural witness and 
has no malice against the petitioner to falsely involve him in the case.  
5. 
 
We have heard the arguments of both sides and have 
perused the record with their assistance.  
 
 
We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has 
assailed the instant petition seeking extraordinary relief of pre-arrest 
bail from this Court in a murder case, which entails capital 
punishment. The superior courts of the country are hesitant to extend 
the said relief in such like cases and the same is exercised with due 
care and caution sparingly. However, this Court being the ultimate 
court of justice is supposed to do complete justice in the interest of 
safe administration of criminal justice and whenever it feels that the 
case of the prosecution is based upon trump up charges or mala fides 
it comes for the rescue of the innocent persons. Even otherwise, a 
duty is casts upon the courts of law to provide protection of law to the 
innocent persons against whom frivolous litigation has been lodged. 
In the instant case, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the 
petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness while lodging the crime 
Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 
3
report with a role of facilitating the evacuation of the deceased to the 
hospital by calling Police Emergency Helpline ‘15’ and Rescue 1122. 
Apart from this, it is also admitted fact that the prosecution kept mum 
for almost one year and it was on 22.10.2020 that one Mst. Masooma 
Bibi was introduced by the prosecution who made a statement under 
Section 161 Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be an eyewitness of the 
occurrence and leveled the allegation of causing two successive fire 
shots on the person of the deceased to the petitioner. The statement of 
Mst. Masooma Bibi was further supplemented by another eyewitness. 
However, the same was recorded with an inordinate delay of 1 year 
and 4 months. During the course of proceedings before us, we have 
specifically inquired from the Investigating Officer about any progress 
made in the investigation qua the role of the petitioner but he failed to 
substantiate any incriminating material except the bald statements 
made by two prosecution witnesses at a belated stage. Delayed 
recording of statement of prosecution witnesses and its value has 
been enunciated by now as universal application where it is now 
established principle of law that any statement of the prosecution 
witnesses if recorded at a belated stage, it looses its sanctity. 
Reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Abdul Khaliq Vs. The 
State (1996 SCMR 1553). This judgment was followed by this Court 
in another judgment reported as Noor Muhammad Vs. The State 
(2020 SCMR 1049) wherein it was held as under:- 
“It is established principle of law that delayed recording 
of statement of the PW under section 161, Cr.P.C. reduces 
its value to nil. Reliance in this regard is placed upon 
case titled as "Abdul Khaliq v. The State" (1996 SCMR 
1553 wherein it has been held as under:- 
"---S. 161---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 
302/34---Late recording of statement under S. 
161, 
Cr.P.C.---Value----Late 
recording 
of 
a 
statement of a prosecution witness under S. 
161, Cr.P.C. reduces its value to nil unless 
delay is plausibly explained".” 
 
6. 
 
We are also conscious of the fact that earlier the scope of 
pre-arrest bail was narrow and it was only limited to rare cases. 
However, the law is not static in any manner rather it has to grow 
while passing through the process of evolution which is an essential 
ingredient of safe administration of criminal justice. In the case of 
Miran Bux Vs. the State (PLD 1989 SC 347), the petitioner/accused 
was charged in a murder case but before he could be arrested, he 
Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 
4
approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of pre-arrest bail, 
which was accordingly granted to him. However, on the application of 
the complainant before the learned High Court seeking cancellation of 
bail granted to the petitioner Miran Bux, the learned High Court 
cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to him. Being aggrieved by the 
order of the learned High Court, the petitioner in that case 
approached this Court and this Court restored the bail granted to him 
by the learned Sessions Judge by holding as under:- 
4. Apart from this we find that the Sessions Judge granted the 
pre-arrest bail to the appellant after considering the merits of 
the, case inasmuch as he inter alia observed that the injury 
alleged to have been caused by the appellant to the leg of the 
deceased by gun. shot was according to the post-mortem note, 
neither fatal nor was caused on the vital part of the body and 
was declared to be simple and that it was a case of further 
inquiry so far as the appellant is concerned. The High Court did 
not at all, consider the case on merits though this Court in the 
case of Jamaluddin v. State 1985, SCMR1949 has observed at 
page 1952 of the report as follows: 
  
“it has been laid down by this Court that the grant or 
refusal of bail in criminal cases primarily depends upon 
the facts of each case and no hard and fast rules can be 
laid down in this regard. In Murad Khan's case to which 
reference was made      by the learned Judge, this Court 
reiterated the principle that arrest for ulterior motives such 
' as humiliation and unjustified harassment was a valid 
consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail. Similar rule was 
laid down in Zia-ul-Hasan's case. In our    opinion. 
therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, did not 
in any respect, disregard the well-recognized principle for 
grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Without upsetting 
the finding, reached by the learned Sessions Judge that 
the petitioner had been involved for ulterior motives of 
harassing due to enmity existing between the parties, the 
learned Judge in the High Court was not justified to 
invoke his suo motu powers for the purpose of canceling 
the order of bail." 
 
7. 
 
This Court in the above-referred salutary judgment 
rendered by a five members’ bench has broadened the scope of pre-
arrest bail and held that while granting extraordinary relief of pre-
arrest bail, merits of the case can be touched upon. Hence, virtually 
the scope of pre-arrest bail has been extended by this Court while 
rendering the afore-referred judgment. Even otherwise, this aspect of 
the law further lends support from the bare reading of provisions of 
Section 497/498 Cr.P.C. The word ‘further inquiry’ has wide 
connotation. Interpretation of criminal law requires that the same 
should be interpreted in the way it defined the object and not to 
construe in a manner that could defeat the ends of justice. Otherwise, 
Criminal Petition No. 537/2021 
5
an accused is always considered a ‘favorite child of law’. When all 
these aspects are considered conjointly on the touchstone of 
principles of criminal jurisprudence enunciated by superior courts 
from time to time, there is no second thought to this proposition that 
the scope of pre-arrest bail indeed has been stretched out further 
which impliedly persuade the courts to decide such like matters in 
more liberal manner. Because basic law is bail not jail. Otherwise, the 
liberty of a person is a precious right, which has been guaranteed by 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Denial of 
liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore, the Courts 
should apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair 
and proper conclusion. Such exercise should not be carried out in 
vacuum or in a flimsy or casual manner as that would defeat the 
ends of justice because if the accused is ultimately acquitted at the 
trial then no reparation or compensation can be awarded to him for 
the long incarceration he had already suffered. Even none of the 
provisions of Cr.P.C provide any remedy to be claimed by the 
petitioner for its compensation.  
8. 
 
In view of the facts and circumstances and the spirit of 
the law as stated above, we are of the considered view that the 
petitioner has made out a case for grant of extraordinary relief of pre-
arrest bail. Resultantly, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it 
and set aside the impugned order. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail 
granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2021 is 
hereby confirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
6th of September, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram