IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.231 OF 2020 
(Against the order of the Peshawar High 
Court, 
Peshawar 
dated 
14.02.2020 
passed in Cr. MBCA No.45-M/2019 and 
Cr. MBCA No.46-M/2019) 
 
 
Sami Ullah and another 
… Petitioners 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Laiq Zada and another 
… Respondents 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner  
 
 
For the Complainant 
: 
Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, ASC 
Barrister Sarwar, Advocate  
 
Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan ASC 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah AOR  
 
For  the State 
: 
Zia Ullah ASI  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
08.05.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- Petitioners 
have sought leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the 
order impugned passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Mingora 
Bench (Dar-ul-Qabza), Swat dated 14.02.2020 in Cr.MBCA No.45/ 
46-M/2019 with the prayer to set-aside the order impugned in the 
interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
The petitioners were booked in case bearing FIR 
No.62/2019 dated 08.06.2019 under Section 316/452/337-A(ii), 
337 F(iv)/34 PPC registered with Police Station Sheringal, District 
Dir Upper. 
Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2020. 
-:2:-
 
 
As per allegation contained in the crime report, it is 
alleged that the complainant was present alongwith other women- 
folk when the petitioners duly armed with sticks and stones 
entered in the house of petitioner and caused injuries to Mst. 
Shabina Bibi, Mst. Prona Bibi, Enam and Khan Zada which landed 
on the different parts of the injured PWs, however Khan Zada 
succumbed to the injuries at a belated stage. The motive behind 
the occurrence was dispute over the agricultural land. The 
petitioners were taken into custody in pursuance of the aforesaid 
crime report. The petitioners applied for their post arrest bail 
which was allowed by learned Addl: Sessions Judge-II, Dir Upper 
vide order dated 01.07.2019. The complainant being aggrieved by 
the order of the learned Addl: Sessions Judge-II, filed two petitions 
(Cr.MBCA No.45-M/Cr. MBCA No.46-M/2019) for cancellation of 
bail, both these petitions were decided vide consolidated order 
dated 14.02.2020. Hence, the instant petition. 
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned 
counsel for the petitioners that in fact, the learned High Court has 
grossly erred in recalling the order of learned trial court and the 
same has been passed without any legal justification. Contends 
that the petitioners were enjoying the concession of bail since 
seven months, however, this aspect was totally ignored while 
passing the order. Further contends that it is established principle 
of law that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation 
whereof are entirely on different footings. It has been argued that 
considerations laid down to entertain such like petitions 
enunciated by the superior courts escaped notice by the learned 
High Court while passing the order. It is vehemently conceded that 
Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2020. 
-:3:-
no doubt learned High Court can adjudicate and recall the order if 
the same is prima facie illegal, perverse, fanciful and passed while 
ignoring the actual record, hence the order impugned is altogether 
in defiance of principles laid down to pass such orders. It is further 
argued that there is nothing on the record which suggests that the 
order passed by learned trial court was falling in such category. 
Lastly contended that injury caused to the deceased on scrotum 
was made basis for recalling the order, although the same is not 
spelled out either from the contents of crime report or is mentioned 
in MLR, hence, the order of learned High Court is untenable, 
passed beyond the record. 
4. 
 
On 
the 
other 
hand, 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
complainant has stated that injury to the deceased was on vital 
part of the body. While elaborating his arguments, he argued that 
whole body sustained injures by the hands of the petitioners which 
means that even the injury if not mentioned specifically in the 
medical report it can be assumed “cause of death” if surfaced 
subsequently hence could be taken into consideration, while 
basing findings of the court on it even in isolation.  
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record with their able assistance. 
The crux of the grievance invoked under section 497(5) Cr.P.C. by 
the complainant before learned High Court Peshawar was that the 
order passed by the learned trial court was in defiance of the 
material available on the record, hence, the same was not 
sustainable in the eye of law. Bare perusal of provision of section 
497(5) Cr.P.C. it do not demonstrate any specific ground to press 
Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2020. 
-:4:-
into the pretense of said provision of law, however, superior courts 
of the country from time to time have enunciated certain principles 
governing cancellation of bail and those are in field with 
unanimous concurrence since considerable time. Those are 
enumerated as under:-  
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. 
 
 
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 which tends to 
establish guilt of the accused.  
 
6. 
Ordinarily the superior courts are reluctant to interfere into 
the order extending concession of bail; rather they have shown 
reluctance to intervene in such like matters. The rationale behind 
is that once concession of bail is granted by a court of competent 
jurisdiction then very strong and exceptional grounds would be 
required to hamper with the concession extended to a person who 
is otherwise clothed with free life, any contrary action of the court 
would be synonymous to curtailing the liberty of such person, 
which otherwise is a precious right guaranteed under the 
Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2020. 
-:5:-
Constitution of the country. Our judicial system has evolved beside 
others the concept of “benefit of reasonable doubt” for the sake of 
safe administration of criminal justice which cannot only be 
extended at the time of adjudication before the trial court or court 
of appeal rather if it is satisfying all legal contours, then it can be 
extended even at bail stage which is a sin-qua-non of a judicial 
pronouncement, hence, any unjustified action by the court of law 
intruding into the affairs would certainly frustrate the free life of an 
accused person after availing the concession of bail. It is not 
beyond the legitimate expectations that in our society mere 
levelling of accusation basing upon trumped-up charges is not 
something 
beyond 
imagination. 
Therefore, 
false 
implication/exploitation which has become epidemic in our society 
has to be safeguarded by the majesty of the courts. Unfortunately, 
our judicial system does not effectively provide appropriate speedy 
remedy for the rescue of innocent person rather it seldom helps 
those who are victim of such wrong doing rightly or wrongly, hence 
it is ensuing serious consequences in the fabric of society.  This 
Court is fully conscious of this aspect.  It is now established that 
every conviction/incarceration suffered by a person involved in a 
criminal case due to any possible reason can repair the wrong 
caused by a mistaken involvement but it cannot compensate him 
for the period he suffered by any means which further demonstrate 
undue frustration in the society at large. This concern of the 
society further casts duty upon the courts of law to adhere the 
dictum of reasonable doubt whenever it is surfaced to resolve it in 
favour of an entity which deserves it judiciously.  
Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2020. 
-:6:-
7. 
 
We have observed that the learned High Court has 
exercised the jurisdiction on the basis of material which is not 
substantiated from the record; hence, the order passed by the 
learned High Court seems to be in defiance of law laid down by this 
Court in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus The State 
(PLD 1995 SC 34).                      
8. 
Another aspect of instant matter is that it has been 
established by this Court in various judgments that courts are 
reluctant to interfere as far as cancellation of bail is concerned 
even if the court is satisfied that the order passed by the court 
below is not sustainable in the eye of law, however, when material 
available on the record was evaluated it do not support misuse of 
concession by the accused in any manner. Hence, the cancellation 
of bail was declined; however, the matter was remanded back to 
the High Court if subsequently it comes on the record any material 
qua misuse of privilege at any stage. Reliance has been placed on 
the case SHAHID ARSHAD versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 
2 others (1976 SCMR 360). 
9. 
 
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, 
we are of considered view that the recalling of order granting bail to 
petitioners by the learned trial court was squarely unjustified, 
hence we are persuaded to grant leave to appeal in the instant 
petition while converting it into appeal and the same is allowed. 
The petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing 
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each with one surety each 
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial 
court/Duty Judge. 
Criminal Petition No. 231 of 2020. 
-:7:-
10. 
 
Before parting with the order, it has been made clear 
that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature 
and it has no bearing during the course of proceedings before the 
learned trial court. 
11. 
 
These are the reasons of our short order dated 
08.05.2020 which is reproduced below:- 
“For the reasons to be recorded separately, this 
petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The 
petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to furnishing 
surety bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- each with PR 
bonds each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 
the trial court” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad,  
08.05.2020 
Approved for reporting 
Athar