IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.996 of 2020  
(Against the order dated 11.08.2020 of the 
Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench passed 
in Cr. Misc. No.1339-B/2020) 
 
Abid Hussain 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Tassawar Hussain and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Hamid Ali Bokhari, ASC 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Haider Mehmood Mirza, ASC 
 
Mr. M. Sharif Janjua, AOR  
 
For the State: 
Ch. Sarwar Sindhu,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab with 
Majid I.O. 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.02.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Impugned herein is 
order dated 11.08.2020 by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore 
High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi whereby Tasawar Hussain 
respondent, one of the accused in a case of murderous assault, blamed 
for a straight effective shot on the abdomen of Husnain Riaz PW 
confirmed by medical evidence, has been granted bail in anticipation to 
his arrest. It is alleged that on the eventful day, in the backdrop of a 
dispute over the possession of a residential house, located within the 
precincts of Police Station Chontra Rawalpindi, the respondent along 
with co-accused, eight in number, differently armed with lethal 
weapons, mounted an assault at 6:30 p.m, in consequence whereof, 
Husnain Riaz sustained three entry wounds on the frontal part of his 
body; his wife Ghazala Bibi, Salma Bibi and Abid Hussain also endured 
injuries.  
 
Avoiding arrest through multiple applications, three in number, 
the respondent was lastly refused anticipatory bail by a learned 
Criminal Petition No. 996 of 2020 
2
Additional Sessions Judge on 14.7.2020, however, extended protection 
vide the impugned order, premised upon the following reasons: 
“It is straightaway observed that though the role of 
causing a firearm injury to injured PW has allegedly 
been attributed which injury has been declared falling 
within the mischief of Section 337-D, PPC yet during the 
course of first investigation, he has been declared 
innocent by the Investigating Officer. Further, besides 
the petitioner, four others accused namely Ejaz 
Hussain, 
Waseem 
Ahmad, 
Saleem 
Ahmad 
and 
Khurram Shahzad were also implicated in the crime 
report, with role of firing but during the course of 
investigation petitioner and co-accused Waseem Ahmad 
have been declared innocent, whereas Saleem Ahmad, 
having allegation of firearm injury to Mst. Salma Bibi 
has been admitted to bail vide order dated 13.11.2019, 
passed in Crl. Misc. No.1867-B of 2019. Other co-
accused namely Khurram Shahzad, with the allegation 
of causing a firearm injury to Abid injured complainant 
has also been granted bail vide order dated 29.01.2020 
and admittedly so far no cancellation of bail petition 
has 
been 
filed 
by 
the 
complainant. 
More 
so, 
confirmatory report regarding all the empties secured 
from the place of occurrence has been received, 
according to which, all have been found fired from the 
pistol allegedly recovered on the pointing out of co-
accused. Moreover, importantly close relatives of the 
petitioner have been implicated in this case and as such 
possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner being 
one of the elder and real brother of Ejaz Hussain co-
accused has falsely been implicated in this case by 
throwing wider net. In such backdrop, case against the 
petitioner has become to be one of further inquiry falling 
within the ambit of Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C. Liberty of a 
person is precious right guaranteed by the Constitution 
of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which cannot be 
taken away until and unless there is cogent reasoning.” 
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
 
3. 
 
The impugned view fails to commend approval for reasons 
more than one; first that it is a journey, inordinately lengthy, into 
forbidden territories as observations recorded by the learned Judge, in 
the absence of evidence, yet to be recorded, though presumably 
tentative, nonetheless, transcend far beyond the barriers of tentative 
assessment; conclusiveness of the impugned findings, being part of a 
bail order, though judicial viewed as without any bearing upon the final 
Criminal Petition No. 996 of 2020 
3
outcome of the case, a business to be best settled by the trial Judge, 
nonetheless, tend to have plunged the prosecution into a situation, 
embarrassing by all means towards its final destination and, thus, 
ought to have been avoided. Reference to the protection of freedom 
guaranteed under the Constitution is equally misplaced as the 
Constitution pledges freedom to the law abiding citizens; an offender, 
alleged to have committed some crime, is subject to a different legal 
regime; he is certainly entitled to due process of law and a fair and 
speedy trial, however, once taken in custody, his release is regulated by 
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and he must 
make out a case within the statutory framework provided thereunder, 
therefore, a pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a substitute for post 
arrest bail. Respondent’s previous conduct also escaped notice by the 
learned Judge; he had been avoiding process of law ever since 
registration of the case as is evident from the record, before the last 
dismissal on merits, he twice secured ad-interim bail, each dismissed 
on account of his failure to appear before the Court on the date fixed. It 
has been held by this Court in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. The State 
& others (2016 SCMR 2064) that such conduct by itself disentitles an 
applicant to judicial protection. Though there is an oblique reference to 
a lurking mala fide, yet with no substance therein. In a run of the mill 
criminal case with four injured unanimously clamouring respondent’s 
participation in the occurrence with a half cooked theory of his 
innocence, subsequently recalled by the police itself, the mala fide 
cannot be readily inferred. Impugned order being inconsistent with the 
purposes and considerations for extending judicial protection to the 
innocent, exposed to the horrors of abuse of process of law, for motives 
oblique and sinister, cannot sustain. Petition is converted into appeal 
and allowed. Impugned order dated 11.08.2020 is set aside; pre-arrest 
bail granted to the respondent is cancelled.   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
2nd February, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
