IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 458 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), 
Swat in Cr.M(BA) No. 160-M/2021) 
 
Hussain Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, ASC 
 
Syed Tariq Aziz, AOR 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Shumayl Aziz, Addl. A.G. KPK 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
14.06.2021 
 
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 post-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 46 dated 29.05.2020 under Section 302/34 
PPC at Police Station Nawagai, District Bajaur. The same relief was 
denied to him by the learned Trial Court as also by the High Court 
vide impugned order.  
2. 
 
As per contents of the crime report, there was a land 
dispute between the complainant and the petitioner and his co-
accused. On the fateful day and time, the accused were plowing the 
disputed land with tractor when complainant along with the 
deceased went there and asked them to leave the land. Upon this 
the accused person fired at the head of the deceased with a pistol, 
due to which he lost his life. 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended 
that in the FIR no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner 
and only a general allegation has been leveled; that nothing has 
been mentioned in the FIR as to whose fire hit the deceased; that 
under the similar circumstances, the co-accused has been granted 
bail, therefore, the petitioner also deserves the same concession; 
Criminal Petition No. 458/2021 
2
that neither any empty nor the weapon of offence has been 
recovered from the petitioner and that the investigation was 
conducted dishonestly and real facts were suppressed just to frame 
the petitioner in the false case.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended 
the impugned judgment. He mainly contended that as per the law 
laid down by the superior courts, the order of the Trial Court is not to 
be interfered with unless there is perversity in the order. He added 
that during investigation, the role of causing fire shot was attributed 
to the petitioner, therefore, he is the main accused and does not 
deserve any leniency by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also 
learned Law Officer and have perused the record with their 
assistance.  
6. 
 
Admittedly, no specific role has been ascribed to the 
petitioner in the FIR and the allegation leveled against him is of 
general nature. It was during investigation that the role of fire shot 
was attributed to the petitioner. However, it was the case of the 
petitioner that the Police Diaries were manipulated by the Police. In 
paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the learned High Court has 
admitted this fact but it did not take into consideration this aspect of 
the matter on the pretext that only tentative assessment of the 
available record is required. Admittedly vide order dated 03.02.2021 
passed by the learned Trial Court, the co-accused of the petitioner 
namely Liaquat Ali has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court 
on the ground that there is no mention of eye-witnesses in the FIR 
and there is conflict between the role assigned to him in the FIR and 
the statements made by the eye-witnesses. On our query, learned 
Law Officer admitted that the record was tampered with during the 
investigation. In these circumstances, when the learned High Court 
had admitted about the tampering of the record, while following the 
rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. 
Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Fazal @ Bodi 
Vs. The State (1979 SCMR 9). Admittedly, neither any empty was 
taken into possession from the place of occurrence nor the weapon of 
offence has been recovered from the petitioner. From the tentative 
assessment of the record and keeping in view the provision of 
Criminal Petition No. 458/2021 
3
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C, we are of the considered view that the 
petitioner has made out a case squarely falling within the ambit of 
further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. As a 
consequence, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and admit 
the petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds 
in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand) with one 
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
14th of June, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram