IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 317-L OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 14.02.2023 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. 
No. 48864-B/2022) 
 
Naveed Sattar 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State etc 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Humayoun Rashid, ASC 
(Through video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Irfan Zia, DPG 
M/s. Wahid and Iqbal, SI 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
In person 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
20.09.2023 
 
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 14.02.2023 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a 
prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 406/2021 
dated 17.07.2021 under Sections 302/34/118/120-B/109/506 PPC at 
Police Station B-Division, District Kasur, in the interest of safe 
administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime 
report is that in the night of 17.07.2021, three unknown persons entered 
in the house of the complainant and murdered her son by making fires on 
his right leg below the abdomen. On the same day, the complainant got 
lodged the FIR against the unknown persons. On 25.08.2021, 30.10.2021 
and 15.11.2021, the complainant got recorded her supplementary 
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she did not nominate the 
Criminal Petition No. 317-L/2023 
2
petitioner as an accused. However, subsequently she recorded yet another 
statement on 22.11.2021 wherein she nominated the present petitioner 
for the first time. The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2021 whereafter 
he applied for post-arrest bail before the learned Trial Court as also before 
the learned High Court but could not get the relief sought for. Hence, this 
petition.  
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 the allegations 
leveled against the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and 
the prosecution story is not worthy of credit. Contends that the 
complainant nominated the petitioner in her fourth supplementary 
statement after a period of four months, which shows her mala fides. 
Contends that the photographs allegedly connecting the petitioner with 
the commission of the crime were never sent for forensic examination, 
therefore, they cannot be relied upon to determine the guilt of the 
petitioner. 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 released on 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 by the complainant while 
recording her supplementary statement and he was found involved during 
police investigation, 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.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, on 17.07.2021 at 
02:50 AM (night), three unknown persons entered in the house of the 
complainant and murdered her son by making fires on his right leg below 
Criminal Petition No. 317-L/2023 
3
the abdomen. On the same day, the complainant got registered the FIR 
against the unknown persons. We have noted that subsequently the 
complainant 
got 
recorded 
three 
supplementary 
statements 
on 
25.08.2021, 30.10.2021 and 15.11.2021 wherein she did not nominate the 
petitioner as an accused. However, on 22.11.2021 she recorded another 
statement after the lapse of more than four months wherein she 
nominated the present petitioner for the first time. A bare look of the 
crime report and the subsequent four supplementary statements got 
recorded by the complainant shows that the complainant remained 
changing her stance. The identification parade was conducted after 
petitioner’s nomination by the complainant and in such circumstances, 
prima facie the sanctity of such test identification parade is open for 
determination. So far as the Call Data Record (CDR) is concerned, this 
Court in a number of cases has held that in absence of any concrete 
material the CDR is not a conclusive piece of evidence to ascertain the 
guilt or otherwise of an accused. Similarly, there is nothing on record to 
show that the photographs allegedly connecting the petitioner with the 
commission of the crime were ever sent for forensic examination, 
therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ishtiaq Ahmed 
Mirza Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) it is unsafe to rely upon 
the same as a piece of evidence in a court of law. It appears there is no 
direct evidence against the petitioner and the prosecution case hinges 
upon the circumstantial evidence. The fundamental principle of universal 
application in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence is that in order 
to justify the inference of guilt of an accused, the incriminating fact must 
be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of 
explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. 
The cumulative effect of all these aspects creates a doubt in the 
genuineness of prosecution version. It is settled principle of law that 
benefit of doubt can be even extended at bail stage. Reliance is placed on 
Muhammad Ejaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271), Muhammad Arshad Vs. 
The State (2022 SCMR 1555) & Fahad Hussain Vs. The State (2023 SCMR 
364). Although the petitioner was found involved during Police 
Criminal Petition No. 317-L/2023 
4
investigation but it is settled law that ipsi dixit of the Police regarding the 
guilt or innocence of an accused could not be depended upon as the same 
would be determined by Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on 
record. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 20 months. 
This court in a number of cases has held 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. 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 and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is 
admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of 
learned Trial Court. Before parting with the order, we may observe that 
the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and would not 
prejudice the proceedings before the Trial Court.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
20th of September, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram