IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.275 of 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Multan Bench in Crl. Misc. No.1185-CB/2021) 
 
 
Muhammad Ismail 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State & others  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Toor, ASC 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Bilal Butt, ASC along 
with accused 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor 
General with Hammad, DSP and M. 
Hanif, I.O. 
 
Date of hearing: 
17.11.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Having left home the 
preceding night, Muhammad Waseem, 24/25, was spotted dead with 
multiple gun wounds within the precincts of Police Station Saddar 
Multan at 8:40 a.m. on 26.10.2019; crime report lodged by his father 
Muhammad Ismail sans the names of culprits as well as motive, 
suspected for the crime, however, through a supplementary statement 
he nominated besides the respondents Muhammad Attique Khan, 
Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen as the suspects. 
Deceased’s carnal designs on Muhammad Attique’s son Haris are 
alleged to have cost him his life. As the investigation progressed, the 
Investigation Officer recorded statements of as many as four witnesses, 
pointing their fingers upon the respondents as well as Muhammad 
Attique; latter assigned the fatal shots. The respondents, statedly, made 
separate confessions before the witnesses wherein they admitted, not 
only to have conspired the crime with the principal accused but also 
flanked him during his fatal encounter with the deceased. A learned 
Additional Sessions Judge at Multan, however, admitted both the 
respondents to anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.12.2020, upheld by 
Criminal Petition No. 275 of 2021 
2
a learned Judge-in-Chamber vide impugned order dated 22.2.2021, 
being assailed on the grounds that in the face of overwhelming 
evidence, 
unambiguously 
pointed 
upon 
the 
culpability 
of 
the 
respondents being comrades in the crime, there was no occasion for the 
learned Addl. Sessions Judge to extend them judicial protection merely 
for the reason that some other co-accused were granted post arrest bail 
by the High Court; the bottom line is that protection of pre-arrest bail is 
an entirely different regime, governed by considerations hardly 
applicable at post arrest stage; he has been joined in his opposition by 
the learned Law Officer. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondents, contrarily, defended the 
impugned order on the grounds that the respondents were not named 
in the crime report and their implication on the basis of a belatedly 
recorded supplementary statement is structured on a misplaced and 
misconceived suspicion; it is next argued that the respondents had no 
earthly reason to tread on red coals particularly when there existed no 
incriminatory evidence that could even obliquely connect them with the 
crime and as such the entire edifice appears to have been raised on 
foundations tainted with mala fide on the basis of statements, stage-
managed subsequent to the incident and, thus, judicial protection 
extended 
to 
them 
is 
an 
arrangement, 
most 
conscionable 
in 
circumstances.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
What weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge 
to grant extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail to the respondents are 
certain observations by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High 
Court Multan Bench whereby two from amongst the accused were 
released on post arrest bail and it is in this backdrop he seemingly 
opted to suspend the usual course of law by invoking principle of 
requirement of consistency. It goes without saying that an accused of a 
cognizable offence scheduled as non-bailable can only claim protection 
of anticipatory bail by reasonably demonstrating his intended arrest 
being contemplated by considerations mala fide and sinister, designed 
to abuse process of law. It is a judicial protection rooted into equity; 
whereas an accused in custody after completion of investigation can be 
released on bail on the touchstone of consideration statutorily 
enumerated in subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898, these two have no parallels.  
 
For effective administration of criminal justice, it is most 
important that prosecution is allowed a meaningful opportunity to carry 
Criminal Petition No. 275 of 2021 
3
out and conclude the investigative process as apart from readily 
available evidence in the aftermaths of an incident it may lay hands 
upon incriminatory material that may possibly become available 
pursuant to disclosures in custody; this has been grievously ignored. 
Similarly, an anticipated failure of prosecution, no matter how loudly 
clamoured, cannot be received to set its case at naught even before it is 
taken off. Failure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as 
learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court to give due weight 
to the statements of the witnesses and misconceived invocation of 
principle of consistency fails to commend our approval. It has been held 
in the case of Mst. Qudrat Bibi (2003 SCMR 68) “…….we are of the 
opinion that at a stage of admitting to an accused on the bail the Court 
should not stamp the prosecution witnesses who have recorded their 
statements promptly to be false witnesses….”. Similarly, pre-arrest bail 
is not to be used as a substitute or as an alternative for post arrest bail. 
See Rana Muhammad Arshad Vs. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 
2009 S.C. 427). 
 
Admission to pre-arrest bail is a huge concession to an accused, 
required to be arrested in a cognizable offence as it exempts him from 
remission into custody, irreversibly foreclosing avenues for the 
prosecution to possibly secure further evidence, consequent upon 
disclosures, therefore, such a relief must only be extended in the face of 
considerations proportionately compelling; these are conspicuously 
lacking; it is most imperative to keep the scales in balance. Petition is 
converted into appeal and allowed. Consequently, order dated 
10.12.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Multan and 
upheld by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court at 
Multan Bench on 22.02.2021 are set aside; pre-arrest bail granted to 
the respondents is cancelled.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
17th November, 2021 
Azmat/- 
