IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 611-L OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 07.06.2023 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 
35337-B/2023) 
 
Abdul Rehman 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State etc 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Dhuddi, ASC a/w petitioner 
(Through video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Abdul Maalik, SI 
Mr. Idrees Afzal, SHO 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
11.08.2023 
 
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 07.06.2023 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. 12/2023 dated 18.01.2023 
under Sections 447/427/511/109/148/149 PPC (Sections 435 & 506 PPC 
added subsequently) at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat, in the interest 
of safe administration of criminal justice.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he 
along with co-accused plowed and destroyed the wheat crop of the 
complainant and also set his millet crop on fire.  
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 there is a delay of more than two 
months in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been put forth 
by the complainant. Contends that the land, which is the root cause of the 
Criminal Petition No. 611-L/2023 
2
occurrence, does not belong to the complainant and a civil litigation is 
pending between the parties. 
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, 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 allegation against 
the petitioner is that he along with co-accused plowed and destroyed the 
wheat crop of the complainant and also set his millet crop on fire. However, 
it is the stance of the petitioner that the land in question is owned and 
possessed by him and a civil litigation regarding the same is also pending 
before the court of competent jurisdiction. It seems that the primary dispute 
between the parties is with regard to the ownership/possession of the land in 
question. In this view of the matter, the possibility of false implication just to 
pressurize the petitioner’s side to gain ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. 
However, at this stage, we do not want to comment on this aspect of the 
matter, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the party. The crime report 
was lodged after a delay of 62 days for which the complainant did not utter a 
single word. In the crime report, only a general role has been ascribed to the 
petitioner and his six co-accused. We have been informed that two co-
accused of the petitioner, who were specifically nominated in the crime 
report, have been declared innocent during investigation. Even otherwise, 
we have been informed by the learned Law Officer that all the seven accused 
have been ascribed the role of jointly causing a loss of about Rs.100,000/- to 
the complainant. It is settled law that liberty of a person is a precious right, 
which has been guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, and the same cannot be taken away merely on bald and 
vague allegations. So far as ‘criminal intimidation’ is concerned, the same has 
been defined in Section 503 PPC. A bare perusal of this provision of law 
makes it clear that whenever an overt act is materialized and ended into an 
Criminal Petition No. 611-L/2023 
3
overt act, the provision of Section 506 PPC would not be applicable and the 
only provision which will remain in the field is the overt act, which is 
committed in consequence of criminal intimidation. Similarly, the question of 
applicability of Section 511 PPC, which is applied only where the prosecution 
is not certain about the offences, would also be resolved by the learned Trial 
Court. 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 case of the 
petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling 
for further inquiry into his guilt. 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and confirm the ad 
interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order 
dated 03.08.2023.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
 
