IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 62-L OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 18.01.2023 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 
70185-B/2022) 
 
Muhammad Aziz @ Mana 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State etc 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Rana, ASC 
Mr. Tasneem Amin, AOR a/w petitioner in 
person  
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Nasir Abbas, DSP 
Mr. Amir Ahmed, SI 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
23.08.2023 
 
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 
petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned 
Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant 
pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 914 dated 09.09.2022 under 
Sections 381/411 PPC at Police Station Factory Area, District Faisalabad, in 
the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime 
report is that 16 co-accused of the petitioner used to work in the factory of 
complainant wherein flags were used to be manufactured. The co-accused of 
the petitioner used to steal the prepared and printed flags and sell the same 
to the petitioner. The co-accused were caught red-handed by the 
complainant and other witnesses and it was found that a loss of about two 
and half crore has been caused to the complainant.  
Criminal Petition No. 62-L/2023 
2
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the 
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the 
actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations leveled against 
the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and the prosecution 
story is not worthy of credit. Contends that all the co-accused including the 
principal accused have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of 
competent jurisdiction, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the 
petitioner also deserves the same treatment to be meted out.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer opposed the petition by 
contending that the petitioner has specifically been nominated in the crime 
report with a specific role of causing huge loss to the complainant, therefore, 
he does 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 co-accused of the 
petitioner used to work in the factory of complainant. Allegedly, they used to 
steal goods and sell the same to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the record 
depicts that the entire fraudulent transaction took place in a span of more 
than four years and no specific dates for commission of theft have been 
given. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of 13 days for which the 
complainant did not utter a single word. The only allegation against the 
petitioner is that he used to purchase the stolen articles from the co-accused. 
Admittedly, he was not employee of the complainant, therefore, the 
question of applicability of Section 381 PPC would be resolved by the learned 
Trial Court. We have been informed that all the co-accused of the petitioner 
have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction. In 
these circumstances 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 petitioner because of the 
reason that soon after his arrest he would be entitled for the concession of 
post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases 
reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali 
Criminal Petition No. 62-L/2023 
3
and others Vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif 
Iqbal Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The 
State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424). 
The maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under 
Section 411 PPC is three years and the same does not fall within the 
prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that grant of bail in 
the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an 
exception. Liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away 
without exceptional foundations. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and 
circumstances of the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that 
the petitioner has been involved in the case by throwing a wider net by the 
complainant. Mere allegation of causing huge loss is no ground to decline bail 
to an accused. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the 
merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on 
Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State 
(PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & 
Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Taking into consideration 
all the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the 
petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted 
to pre-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned 
Trial Court.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
23rd of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram