IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 879 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 15.07.2021 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Crl. Misc. 
No. 4853-B/2021) 
 
Muhammad Baqir 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Rafaqat Islam Awan, ASC 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For the Respondent (2): Mian Muhammad Ismail Thaheem, ASC 
a/w respondent No. 2 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
06.12.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to 
the respondent Qamar Abbas by the learned Lahore High Court, 
Multan Bench vide order dated 15.07.2021 in case registered vide 
FIR No. 146 dated 04.04.2020 under Sections 302 / 109 / 148 / 
149 / 452 PPC at Police Station Nawan Shehar, District Khanewal, 
in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.  
 
2. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, on the fateful 
day and time, the respondent along with co-accused while armed 
with firearms trespassed into the house of the complainant and 
started firing. The respondent made fire shot with his rifle, which 
landed on the backside of the right hand of Majid Ali, paternal 
cousin of the complainant. The co-accused of the respondent also 
fired on the person of the said Majid Ali, which hit on the left side of 
his belly and he fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries.     
Criminal Petition No. 879/2021 
2
 
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was specifically 
nominated in the promptly lodged crime report with the specific 
allegation of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased. 
Contends that the ocular evidence corroborates with the medical 
evidence but the learned High Court did not take into consideration 
this aspect of the matter. Contends that the respondent remained 
absconder for a period of about one year, which clearly shows that 
he was fully involved in the commission of the crime. Contends that 
the respondent is hardened criminal and is involved in so many 
criminal cases of murder and dacoity etc. Contends that to prevent 
the complainant from pursuing the case, the respondent had also 
launched murderous assault on the complainant and in this regard 
another criminal case has been registered against him and if the bail 
granted to him by the learned High Court is not cancelled, there is 
every possibility that he will again try to harm the complainant. 
Lastly contends that the order passed by the learned High Court 
being perverse and fanciful, the same may be set aside.  
 
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 
has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail was 
granted to the respondent. He contended that the considerations for 
grant of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on different 
footings and once bail has been granted to an accused on the basis 
of tentative assessment of evidence available on record then for its 
cancellation exceptional strong reasons are required. He contended 
that the alleged injury ascribed to the respondent on the person of 
the deceased is on non-vital part of the body and could not result in 
death in the ordinary course of nature, therefore, the learned High 
Court has rightly granted bail to the respondent.  
 
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the respondent is 
nominated in the crime report wherein a specific accusation of 
causing firearm injury on the backside of right hand of the deceased 
has been leveled against him. Although the matter was reported to 
Criminal Petition No. 879/2021 
3
the Police after about 4 hours but keeping in view the inter se 
distance between the place of occurrence and the police station i.e. 
18 kilometers and the fact that in such like situations, the people 
firstly try to save the life of injured, the same would be considered a 
promptly lodged FIR. Previous enmity between the parties is not 
denied. The instant occurrence has taken place in broad daylight 
whereas the parties are known to each other, therefore, there is no 
chance of mis-identification. The injury ascribed to the respondent is 
fully supported by medical evidence. We have been informed that 
after the registration of the present FIR, the respondent had filed 
application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Trial Court but 
when he could not get the relief sought for, he approached the 
learned High Court and ultimately had withdrawn his pre-arrest bail 
petition on 09.09.2020 but despite that he did not surrender, fled 
away and remained absconder for a considerable period of time. 
The perusal of available record shows that the respondent had 
allegedly launched murderous assault on the complainant on 
22.01.2021 for which a separate criminal case bearing FIR No. 
41/2021 has been got registered by the complainant party. 
Otherwise, the mode and manner of occurrence shows that the 
respondent along with co-accused had trespassed into the house of 
the complainant with intent to kill the deceased as they started 
straight firing upon the deceased. Mere the fact that the fire shot 
made by the respondent hit on the hand of the deceased does not 
make any difference because the respondent had made a direct fire 
on the deceased with the intention to kill but it hit on his hand. The 
postmortem report clearly depicts that both injuries are contributory 
toward death of deceased. Prima facie, the respondent is vicariously 
liable for the offence committed and had shared the common 
intention to take life of the deceased. However, the learned High 
Court did not take into consideration any of the above-said aspects 
of the matter, therefore, we are constrained to hold that the 
reasoning advanced by the learned High Court while granting bail to 
the respondent is artificial in nature. We are under obligation to 
attend to the facts and circumstances of the lis brought before us 
and to evaluate the same in such a manner so that no injustice is 
likely to be done to either of the party. In the instant case, the 
Criminal Petition No. 879/2021 
4
learned High Court has not given any justiciable reasoning to bring 
the case of the respondent within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C 
calling for further probe into his guilt. Upon assessment of the 
available record, we have found that the impugned order does not 
have any nexus with the guidelines enunciated by the superior 
courts from time to time with reference to grant of bail. In our 
opinion, in the instant case the learned High Court while granting 
bail to the respondent has erred in law and facts and has passed an 
order which is perverse, fanciful and arbitrary, therefore, the same 
is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As a consequence, we convert 
this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and 
cancel the bail granted to the respondent by the learned High Court 
vide impugned order dated 15.07.2021.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
6th of December, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
