IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1017/2020  
(Against order dated 05.08.2020 passed by 
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in 
Crl. Misc. No.1378-B/2020) 
 
Sher Afzal 
: 
 
 
 
… 
Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State and another 
: 
Respondent(s) 
 … 
 
For the Petitioner(s)  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Ikhlaque Awan, ASC 
For the State 
 
Mr. Muhammad Usman DPG 
For the Complainant 
 
Nemo  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
12.11.2020 
 
 
ORDER  
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J: - Petitioner has assailed the 
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calling in question the order of Single Bench of 
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 05.08.2020 in Crl. 
Miscellaneous No.1378-B/2020 declining post arrest bail to the petitioner 
with prayer to grant the same in the interest of safe administration of 
criminal justice. 
2. 
 
The facts prompted to file this petition are that one Mst. 
Seemab Wasif lodged a crime report bearing No.234/2020 dated 
20.05.2020 offence u/s 302/34 PPC registered with Police Station Kahota 
District Rawalpindi. As per contents of the crime report, it is mentioned 
that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused in furtherance of their 
common intention committed the murder of Wasif Khan and Asim Khan by 
resorting of indiscriminate firing by co-accused namely Shahid and 
Shafique. The allegation against the petitioner is merely a proverbial 
“Lalkara” whereas he is also assigned the role of causing kicks to both the 
Criminal Petition No.1017/2020 
Sher Afzal Vs, The State and another 
2 
 
deceased while they were lying on the ground after sustaining fire shots. 
The petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the court of first instance 
which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. 
The learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide 
order dated 20.07.2020. The petitioner assailed the order before learned 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench through moving an application bearing 
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1378-B of 2020. The learned Single Bench of 
High Court dismissed the same vide detailed order dated 05.08.2020, 
hence, the instant petition for the grant of post arrest bail. 
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned counsel 
for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against 
actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the petitioner is an old 
man, suffering from ailment and as such he is physically unable to perform 
the role ascribed to him. Further contends that son of the petitioner 
namely Shahid who is one of the main perpetrator of the occurrence 
beside Muhammad Shafique has already been disowned by the petitioner 
through a proclamation which was published in newspaper much prior to 
the occurrence. Lastly it has been contended that co-accused Mst. Zeenat 
Bibi to whom the role of kicking the dead body is also assigned was 
granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial court, therefore, the petitioner is 
also entitled for concession of bail on the plea of consistency. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has controverted the 
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The crux of 
the arguments advanced by the learned Law Officer is that the petitioner is 
duly nominated in the crime report with special allegation of raising 
commanding “Lalkara”. Further contends that two persons were done to 
death in a brutal manner against a definite motive. Contends that the case 
of co-accused Mst. Zeenat Bibi is distinguishable, hence, petitioner cannot 
Criminal Petition No.1017/2020 
Sher Afzal Vs, The State and another 
3 
 
claim bail on the plea of consistency. Contends that the petitioner is not 
entitled for the relief sought for.  
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone 
through the record. 
 
 
It is most salutary principle of law that each criminal case 
has its own facts and circumstances and it cannot coincide with others. In 
the instant case, there is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is 
nominated in the crime report wherein he is assigned role of raising 
“Lalkara” whereas the co-accused of the petitioner resorted to 
indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons causing death of Wasif 
Khan and Asif Khan. Undeniably, the accusation levelled against the 
petitioner is twofold:- 
(i) 
Raising of “Lalkara”. 
(ii) 
Kicking the dead bodies after the occurrence. 
Admittedly the petitioner is aged about 65 years and he is also suffering 
from ailment. Close scrutiny of the accusation levelled by the prosecution, 
no overt-act is ascribed to the petitioner except the proverbial “Lalkara. 
The question which require determination is whether the “Lalkara” raised 
by the petitioner was commanding in nature or that was mere a proverbial 
“Lalkara”. During the course of proceedings before us, it has been 
vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 
petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility of sharing common 
intention with the co-accused on the ground that the petitioner was not 
enjoying good relationing with co-accused especially Shahid, because of 
the reason that a proclamation in this regard was already published in the 
newspaper disassociating itself from all affairs of said Shahid and he was 
also deprived from movable and immovable property owned by the 
petitioner. This Court vide order dated 23.10.2020 persuaded the learned 
Criminal Petition No.1017/2020 
Sher Afzal Vs, The State and another 
4 
 
counsel to offer his good offices for the production of said Shahid who is 
fugitive from law. The learned counsel at the strength of the proclamation 
published in the newspaper has stated that as the petitioner is behind the 
bar and he has no access to his son with whom he has already strained 
relations, therefore, it is not within his command to produce him before the 
police. Keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel and law on 
the subject, as the proclamation was issued much prior to the lodging of 
the crime report; question qua its being a commanding “Lalkara” or 
otherwise it seems to be determined by the learned trial court after 
recording of evidence. As far as second limb of the accusation is 
concerned, co-accused with similar allegation was extended pre-arrest 
bail by the learned trial court; hence, the petitioner is entitled for the same 
on this score alone. Liberty of a person is a precious right which has to be 
resolved in favour of the accused being favourite child of law, denial of 
same require extreme compelling reasons.  
6. 
 
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above 
and law on the subject, we are of the considered view that the case of the 
petitioner is of further inquiry fully covered u/s 497(2) Cr.PC entitling for 
concession of bail. As a consequence, leave to appeal is granted in the 
instant petition while converting it into appeal and the same is allowed. 
The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds 
in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of the learned trial court/Duty Judge.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
12.11.2020 
Approved for reporting 
*Athar 
