IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 507-L OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 02.04.2021 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous 
Application No. 15372-B/2021) 
 
Kazim Ali and others 
… Petitioners 
VERSUS 
The State etc 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Rana Muhammad Shahid Mahmood, ASC 
a/w petitioners 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.g.  
 
Mr. Tahir Bashir, SI 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
11.10.2021 
 
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 order dated 
02.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 285 dated 25.07.2020 under Sections 337-
F(v) / 337-F(i) /337-F(ii) /337-A(i) / 337-H(2) / 354 / 452 / 427 / 
148 / 149 PPC at Police Station Sher Garh, District Okara 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 firearms and 
‘sotas’ firstly attacked on the complainant party and injured cousin 
of the complainant and thereafter trespassed into the houses of 
relatives of the complainant, gave beating to the women folk and 
children and also set on fire two motorcycles.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned 
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are falsely roped in 
this case against the actual facts and circumstances of this case. 
Criminal Petition No. 507-L/2021 
2
Contends that the story advanced by the complainant does not 
inspire confidence as a large number of persons while committing 
the offence in the manner as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses, 
their role cannot be specified with exactitude as is narrated in the 
crime report. Contends that 4 out of 17 accused were arrested by 
the Police and they have been granted post-arrest bail by the court 
of first instance. Contends that the role of the petitioners is similar to 
the co-accused already granted bail, hence, they are also entitled for 
the concession of bail on the principle of consistency. Contends that 
the learned High Court while adjudicating the matter has wrongly 
observed that Sections 354/427/452/148/149 PPC are attracted in 
this case and did not take into consideration the role ascribed to 
each of the petitioners. Contends that most of the offences are 
bailable in nature and cannot be made basis for declining bail to the 
petitioners without recording the evidence during the course of trial. 
Lastly contends that the petitioners are entitled for the concession of 
bail on this score alone.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer argued that 
there is no denial to this fact that co-accused of the petitioners four 
in number have been granted post-arrest bail and as such the case 
of the petitioners is similar to those already extended concession of 
bail.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have gone through the record.  
 
 
There is no denial to the fact that there is a delay of four 
days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been 
given. As per the contents of the crime report, 17 persons are 
nominated in the crime report, who allegedly while variously armed 
caused injuries to the injured PWs on various parts of the body. 
There is a counter version of the occurrence which was recorded by 
the local police regarding the same occurrence vide FIR No. 
310/2020 under Sections 379 / 354 / 427 / 337-A(i) / 337-L(ii) / 
148 / 149 PPC at Police Station Sher Garh, District Okara. While 
evaluating the facts and circumstances narrated from both ends, it 
has become imperative for this Court to adjudicate the matter 
keeping in view the role ascribed to accused nominated in counter 
case and while keeping the same in juxtaposition it has to arrive at 
Criminal Petition No. 507-L/2021 
3
a conclusion which meets the requirements of the dictates of justice. 
During course of arguments, it has been pointed out that four co-
accused of the petitioners were taken into custody by the local police 
and they have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of 
competent jurisdiction, which has not been challenged by the 
complainant at any forum. We are conversant with the fact that as 
per the contents of the crime report, the case of either of the 
petitioners cannot be distinguished from the four co-accused who 
have been granted the concession of post-arrest bail. In such like 
situation, when it is admitted fact that the role ascribed to a large 
number of accused is of general nature and that cannot be 
distinguished from each other, if 4 out of 17 accused have already 
been granted bail by the court of competent jurisdiction which 
remains unchallenged by the complainant, any order by this Court 
on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail 
and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only 
limited upto the arrest of the petitioners because of the reason that 
soon after their arrest they would be entitled for the concession of 
post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. In a similar situation in 
the case reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 
SCMR 1380), the respondent, who was involved in a murder case, 
was allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court while the 
other similarly placed co-accused were granted bail after arrest. The 
complainant did not challenge the grant of bail after arrest to the 
similarly placed co-accused and sought cancellation of pre-arrest 
bail granted to the respondent before this Court by filing a criminal 
petition but this Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail 
by holding that “no useful purpose would be served if the bail of 
Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground 
because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground 
that similarly placed other accused are already on bail.” In these 
circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence 
would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Prima 
facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the 
case of the petitioners is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. 
calling for further inquiry to their guilt. 
Criminal Petition No. 507-L/2021 
4
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 
02.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. 
The petitioners are admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to their 
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each with two 
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial 
Court.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the  
11th of October, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram