IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 245 OF 2023 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 20.02.2023 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan in 
Crl. MBC No. 123-D/2022) 
 
Saeed Ullah,  
Yar Muhammad,  
Inayat Ullah 
 
 
… Petitioners 
Versus 
The State and another  
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Sultan Mazhar Sher Khan, Addl. A.G. 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Raja Muhammad Farooq, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
04.05.2023 
 
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 petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed 
by the learned Single Judge of the learned Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan 
Bench, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR 
No. 300 dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 324/34 PPC at Police Station 
SNK, District D.I. Khan, in the interest of safe administration of criminal 
justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioners is that 
they along with co-accused while armed with Kalashnikovs launched a 
murderous assault on the complainant party and due to the firing made by 
them, the complainant sustained injuries on his body. After their arrest, 
the petitioners applied for post-arrest bail before the learned Trial Court 
and succeeded in getting the relief sought for. Being aggrieved, the 
complainant filed cancellation of bail petition before the learned High 
Criminal Petition No. 245/2023 
2
Court, which has been allowed vide impugned judgment. Hence, this 
petition seeking leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for 
the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case 
against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations 
leveled against the petitioners are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and 
the prosecution story is not worthy of credit. Contends that in the crime 
report no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners and the same 
is general in nature, therefore, the case of the petitioners is one of further 
inquiry. Contends that injuries sustained by the complainant are on non-
vital parts of the body, as such, the provision of Section 324 PPC is not 
attracted in the case. Contends that the learned High Court while recalling 
the bail granted to the petitioners 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 petitioners may be released on bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition by contending that the 
petitioners have specifically been nominated in the crime report with a 
specific role of firing at the complainant, therefore, they do 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 petitioners is that they along with co-accused while armed 
with Kalashnikovs launched a murderous assault on the complainant party 
and due to the firing made by them, the complainant sustained injuries on 
his body. There is no denial to this fact that it’s a case of promptly lodged 
FIR as the matter was reported to the Police within an hour of the 
occurrence. However, we have noted that only a general role has been 
ascribed to the petitioners and no details have been given as to which 
petitioner fired at which part of the body of the complainant. The 
Criminal Petition No. 245/2023 
3
complainant received injuries on the non-vital parts of the body. A bare 
perusal of the medico legal report reveals that at the one hand the 
medical officer declared the injuries as “simple” and on the other hand he 
held the same to be “grievous”. On court query, learned Law Officer 
admitted that none of the injuries exposed the bone. It is now well settled 
principle of law that if two views are possible from the evidence adduced 
in the case then the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted. 
Reliance is placed on Saghir Ahmed Vs. State (2023 SCMR 241) and Sahib 
Ullah Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1806). As stated above, the complainant 
sustained injuries on non-vital parts of the body whereas more than 37 
empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence, which prima 
facie shows that the accused had no intention to kill the complainant 
despite having ample opportunity to do so. In this view of the matter, the 
question whether Section 324 PPC would be applicable in the case or not 
would be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording of 
evidence. In the case reported as Samiullah Vs. Laiq Zada (2020 SCMR 
1115), this Court has framed following seven guidelines for the purpose of 
cancellation of bail: -  
 
“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.” 
 
7. 
 
On our specific query, learned counsel for the complainant 
admitted that none of the above-said principles have been violated, which 
could be made basis to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by the 
Criminal Petition No. 245/2023 
4
learned Trial Court. In the Samiullah supra case this Court in categorical 
terms has held that where material available on the record does not 
support a finding of misuse of concession of bail by the accused in any 
manner, the court can decline cancellation of bail even if it is satisfied that 
the bail granting order passed by the court below is not sustainable in the 
eye of law. However, we are of the view that the learned High Court did 
not take into consideration the above aspect of the matter. Even this 
Court has shown magnanimity where although the order granting bail to 
the accused by the court was found to be perverse but showed reluctance 
to recall the order. Reliance is placed on Shahid Arshad Vs. Muhammad 
Naqi Butt (1976 SCMR 360).  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 petitioners squarely falls within the ambit of 
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into their guilt. 
 
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment. The petitioners 
are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.200,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of learned Trial Court. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
4th of May, 2023 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram