IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 632 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 24.05.2021 passed 
by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Crl.MBA No. 
1148-P/2021) 
 
Abdul Majid Afridi 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and Abdul Latif Afridi 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Sher Afzal Khan Marwat, ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, AOR 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Addl. P.G 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Namir, I.O 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
08.11.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- The petitioner through 
the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought cancellation of bail granted to the 
respondent vide FIR No. 229/2021 dated 04.04.2021 U/s 302 / 
324 / 148 / 149 / 109 / 427 / 353 / 34 PPC read with Section 7 of 
the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 registered with Police Station Lahor, 
District Swabi by the Peshawar High Court vide order dated 
24.05.2021 in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.  
 
2. 
 
As per allegations contained in the FIR, it is alleged that 
the said occurrence in which four persons lost their lives including 
one pregnant lady of advanced stage along with two other, who 
sustained injuries, was committed on the instigation/abetment of 
respondent. After the registration of the aforesaid crime report 
respondent filed a direct petition seeking anticipatory bail before the 
High Court which was confirmed vide order dated 24.05.2021, the 
said order is impugned before us. Hence the instant petition. 
 
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that there is no denial to this fact that the 
Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 
2
respondent and the complainant party were inimical towards each 
other with previous enmity of murders. Contends that the main 
assailants in the aforesaid crime report are closely related to the 
respondent, hence, there is very strong reason to believe that the 
instant occurrence has taken place at the behest of the respondent. 
Contends that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy in the 
‘hujra’ of the respondent, which was subsequently materialized 
resulting into death of four persons including one woman, who was 
six months pregnant. Contends that one of the deceased was 
District & Sessions Judge; otherwise it has taken place in a 
populated area, therefore, it stirred the public peace and security 
due to its gravity, hence, the relief extended by the High Court is 
uncalled for. Contends that the respondent had directly filed petition 
before the High Court to get the relief of pre-arrest bail, which is 
against normal practice and even during the pendency of the 
petition, the respondent was burdened with an amount of 
Rs.20,000/- to be deposited to a charitable foundation on the basis 
of a mis-statement, therefore, this aspect in “isolation” is sufficient to 
accede to the prayer of the petitioner before this Court. Contends 
that the respondent remained the President of the Bar and due to 
office he enjoyed, extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail was 
extended to him. Lastly it is argued that in all eventualities, it is a fit 
case for interference by this Court in the interest of justice.  
 
4. 
 
On the other hand, the learned Law Officer has 
defended the impugned order by contending that there is nothing on 
record, which could suggest that the respondent has misused the 
concession of bail in any manner, therefore, in absence of any 
material, which is essential for cancellation of bail, the impugned 
order may be upheld.  
 
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 
gone through the record with their able assistance.  
 
 
 
Prior to touching upon the merits of the case, we deem it 
appropriate to discuss the preliminary objection raised by the 
learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had filed a 
direct petition seeking pre-arrest bail before the High Court without 
exhausting the remedy of approaching the Court of first instance. 
Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 
3
There is no denial to this fact that the jurisdiction of the Sessions 
Court and the High Court is concurrent in nature. The learned High 
Court while adjudicating the matter has given cogent reasons 
especially when it is admitted that one of the deceased was himself 
a District & Sessions Judge, therefore, any order if would have been 
passed either way that would have been considered prejudicial 
because of the reason that the deceased was member of the district 
judiciary. Even otherwise, the respondent has not availed one 
remedy, which was available to him while agitating his grievance 
before the High Court, therefore, he lost one opportunity causing no 
prejudice to complainant party.  
 
6. 
 
On merits, we deem it of prime consideration to evaluate 
the material available on the record to connect the respondent with 
the accusation as alleged against him. We have perused the crime 
report with naked eye and found that the complainant while lodging 
crime report has not mentioned specific date, time and place where 
the conspiracy was hatched. Even name and number of witnesses 
to that extent is not incorporated while lodging the FIR. During the 
course of arguments, it was informed that one of the assailants, who 
was taken into custody, made a confessional statement under 
Section 164 Cr.P.C. In his statement, he has admitted the instant 
occurrence and has pointed out towards the respondent being head 
of the family to instigate the others to commit the aforesaid 
occurrence. Perusal of the statement clearly reflects that an incident 
had taken place way back in the month of April, 2020 when ‘jirga’ 
was convened between the families to settle down the blood feud 
between the parties, however, it ended in exchange of hot words 
where the respondent had extended threats of dire consequences to 
one of the deceased Aftab Afridi. The confessional statement is 
reproduced for its perusal:- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 
4
7. 
 
The statement of one accused in “isolation” does not 
advance the prosecution case except at the most it is a statement of 
a co-accused. We have noticed that there is nothing on the record 
where the prosecution has advanced its case qua conspiracy in any 
manner except the bald allegation which is incorporated in the FIR 
without citing any witness of the said aspect of the case. The 
statement of one of the assailants recorded under Section 164 
Cr.P.C in all fairness is a statement of co-accused, hence, no 
deviation can be made against the established principle of law that 
statement of one accused cannot be used against the other in 
absence of any attending material produced by the prosecution. 
Reliance is placed on Nouman Khan Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 666) 
& Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 738). 
Perusal of Section 107 PPC reveals that three ingredients are 
essential to dub any person as conspirator i.e. (i) instigation, (ii) 
engagement with co-accused, and (iii) intentional aid qua the act or 
omission for the purpose of completion of said abetment. All these 
three ingredients of Section 107 PPC are prima facie missing from 
the record. We do not want to give any finding in this regard 
because it can prejudice the case of either of the party. It is now 
established without any hesitation that considerations for the grant 
of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on different footings. 
Generally speaking, the Courts are reluctant to interfere in the order 
of grant of bail and even in cases where it is apparently found that 
the bail granting order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the 
Courts restrain to interfere in such matters if it is found that there 
was nothing to show that the accused has misused the concession 
of bail. Reliance is placed on Shahid Arshad Vs. Muhammad Naqi 
Butt (1976 SCMR 360). In a recent judgment reported as Samiullah 
Vs. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 1115), which was further followed in 
Criminal Petition Nos. 1459/2020, 1523/2020, 970 to 976/2021 & 
Criminal Petition No. 1145-L of 2020, this Court has held that for the 
purpose of cancellation of bail, following considerations are to be 
satisfied:- 
 
“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. 
Criminal Petition No. 632/2021 
5
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 with tends to establish guilt 
of the accused.” 
 
9. 
 
When we confronted learned counsel for the petitioner 
with the above-said guidelines, he could not point out on record as to 
whether the respondent has violated any of the afore-referred 
conditions, which could become basis for cancellation of bail granted 
to him. The accumulative effect of the reasons given above is that the 
order impugned before us is in accordance with law and learned 
counsel for the petitioner has failed to justify that the High Court has 
erred in deciding the matter, which by any stretch of imagination 
could be termed as perverse, arbitrary and fanciful. During the 
course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought 
to the notice of this Court that the family of the deceased Judge 
Aftab Afridi is being threatened through social media for dire 
consequences and in this regard three complaints have been lodged 
with Federal Investigating Agency. In this view of the matter, the 
CCPO Peshawar is directed to provide adequate security to the legal 
heirs of the deceased Judge. The concerned Director FIA is also 
directed to inquire into the contents of the complaints and if found 
actionable proceed strictly in accordance with law.  
 
10. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any 
merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to 
appeal is refused.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
8th of November, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram