IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL  
MR. JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.560-L OF 2021 
(Against the order dated 04.03.2021 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. 
No.11025/B/2021) 
 
 
Basharat Ali 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab and another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, DPG 
Mr. Sibtain, I.O. 
 
 
For Respondent No.2: 
Mr. Tariq Nadeem, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
15.11.2021 
 
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 petitioner has assailed the order dated 
04.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore with a prayer to grant  post arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 415 dated 31.10.2019 under Sections 
302/324/34/109 PPC at Police Station Miana Gondal, District 
Mandi Bahauddin in the interest of safe administration of criminal 
justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is 
that he along with co-accused while armed with Kalashnikovs 
caused fire-arm injuries to Muhammad Anar and Mazhar Iqbal alias 
Mohri as a consequence of which Muhammad Anar died on his way 
to hospital. 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.560-L OF 2021 
-: 2 :-
3. 
 
At the very outset it has been contended by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in 
this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Further 
contends that though the petitioner was ascribed the role of causing 
injury to the deceased and injured PW, however during the course of 
second investigation it was found that the petitioner had no nexus 
with the crime alleged and even the recovery affected from the 
petitioner found to be not connected and as such the case of the 
petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. 
entitling him for concession of bail. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, it has been contended by the 
learned Law Officer, assisted by the learned counsel for the 
complainant, that the petitioner is nominated with specific role of 
causing injuries to the deceased as well as injured PW. Contends 
that the earlier bail petition bearing Criminal Misc. No.22590-
B/2020 was dismissed while touching upon the merits of the case 
vide order dated 01.07.2020. Further contends that as said order 
was not assailed before this Court, therefore, the instant petition is 
barred by time and not entertainable in the given facts and 
circumstances. 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at 
some length and gone through the record with their able assistance.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence has 
taken place within the premises of Police Station Miana Gondal, the 
parties also belong to the same vicinity and there is no chance of 
mis-identification especially when the parties are inimical to each 
other. As per the accusation against the petitioner, he is ascribed the 
role of causing fire-arm injury on the body of the deceased as well 
as injured PW. Both the injuries are spelt out from the medical 
report. During the course of first investigation, the petitioner was 
found fully involved in the case. The claim of the petitioner that 
during the second investigation, he was found innocent does not 
imprint any concession in his favour especially when this aspect 
was already taken into consideration by the High Court while 
dismissing the petition for bail in the first round of litigation. Further 
that the Investigating Officer who gave opinion in favour of the 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.560-L OF 2021 
-: 3 :-
petitioner has not dared to place his name in column No.2, rather the 
same was placed in column No.3 of the report submitted under 
Section 173 Cr.P.C. Further that the ground urged before the High 
Court and before us was already in the knowledge of the petitioner 
and that cannot be made basis for filing another application before 
the High Court keeping in view the dictum laid down in The State 
through Advocate-General, NWFP Vs. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 
SC 173), otherwise the ipsi dixit of the police is not binding, rather it 
has persuasive value but that depends upon the facts and 
circumstances surfaced on the record. It is salutary principle of law 
that each criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and 
has to be decided according to the peculiar facts brought on the 
record. The contention of the learned counsel that the recovery has 
become inconsequential has no bearing at this stage and the same 
would be resolved after recording of the evidence.  
6. 
 
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, 
we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a 
case for enlargement on bail. Consequently, this petition having no 
merits is dismissed and leave is refused. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the 
15th of November, 2021 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
