IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 150-L OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 20.01.2023 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 3872-
B/2023) 
 
Saad Zia 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State etc 
 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Sahir Mehmood Bhatti, ASC along with 
petitioner 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Saeed, SI 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
In person 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
20.06.2023 
 
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 20.01.2023 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. 79/2019 dated 14.02.2019 
under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC at Police Station Saddar Wazirabad, 
District Gujranwala, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime 
report is that on 14.02.2019, the complainant along with his sons went to a 
marriage hall to attend marriage of his niece. While the complainant and his 
sons were entering in the hall, the petitioner along with other co-accused 
while armed with pistol, who were already sitting in the hall, raised lalkara to 
kill them. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Qasim Ali and Ehtesham 
made straight firing upon the complainant and his son, which landed on the 
Criminal Petition No. 150-L/2023 
2
neck of son and left foot of the complainant. The assailants also resorted to 
indiscriminate firing due to which several other persons sustained injuries. 
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 it is a case of two versions 
squarely falling within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Contends that 
during investigation, the petitioner was found to be empty handed at the 
time of occurrence and was placed in coloumn No. 2 in report under Section 
173 Cr.P.C. Lastly contends that the learned High Court while declining bail to 
the petitioner has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court for the 
safe administration of criminal justice, therefore, the same may be set at 
naught and the petitioner may be granted bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the 
complainant in person opposed the petition by contending that the 
petitioner has specifically been nominated in the crime report, further he 
remained absconder for a considerable period of time, therefore, he does 
not deserve any leniency from this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation against 
the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with pistol 
launched an attack on the complainant party and resorted to indiscriminate 
firing due to which several persons sustained injuries. We have noticed that 
though a generalized allegation of causing indiscriminate firing has been 
alleged against the petitioner, however, during the course of investigation, it 
transpired that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence 
and he has not been ascribed any overt act. This opinion of the Police has not 
been challenged, rather the petitioner was placed in coloumn No. 2 of the 
report furnished under Section 173 Cr.P.C. This is established principle of law 
that mere the fact that a person is nominated in the crime report does not 
dub him as an accused unless and until during the course of investigation the 
accusation against the said person is found to be correct. In a salutary 
Criminal Petition No. 150-L/2023 
3
judgment reported as F.B. Ali Vs. The State (PLD 1975 SC 506), this Court held 
as under:- 
“Mere lodging of information against a person does not make him an 
accused nor can a person be called accused against whom 
investigation is conducted by Police.” 
 
7. 
 
It is the stance of the petitioner that in-fact complainant party 
was aggressor and two persons from the petitioner’s side sustained injuries 
during the occurrence, which were suppressed by the complainant side. So 
far as the argument of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the 
petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as 
a proof for the offence. In Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 
SC 477) this Court has held that mere absconsion cannot be made a ground 
to discard the relief sought for as disappearance of a person after the 
occurrence is but natural if he is involved in a murder case rightly or wrongly. 
Reliance is also placed on Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 
2009 SC 53). It is an admitted position that the petitioner himself 
surrendered before the law and joined investigation. In these circumstances, 
it is the Trial Court, who after recording of evidence would decide about the 
guilt or otherwise of the petitioner and till then the petitioner cannot be put 
behind the bars for an indefinite period. This court has time and again held 
that liberty of a person is a precious right, which cannot be taken away 
merely on the basis of bald allegations. The petitioner is a student having no 
criminal history and keeping him behind the bars with the hardened criminals 
would not be in the interest of justice. 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. 
Criminal Petition No. 150-L/2023 
4
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and confirm ad interim 
pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 
01.06.2023. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
20th of June, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram