IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.247/2015 
(Against the order dated 9.04.2015 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in Crl.Misc. No.3522-B/15) 
 
Muhammad Sadiq and others  
 
 
Petitioners 
 
 
Versus 
The State and another  
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
 
 
Ch. Muhammad Maqsood Ahmad, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
a/w petitioners in person  
 
For the State:  
 
 
Ch. M. Waheed Khan, Addl.P.G. Pb. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Aslam, S.I. P.S. Kamoke 
 
For the Complainant:  
 
Justice (R) Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
5.05.2015 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J.- Through the instant petition the petitioners 
seek setting aside of the order dated 9.04.2015 through which Crl.Misc. 
No.3522-B/15, filed by the petitioners for grant of bail before arrest in case 
FIR No.440 dated 7.07.2014 registered under Section 365 PPC, has been 
dismissed.  
2. 
Facts of this case are that according to the complainant-Abrar Hussain 
an incident has taken place on 7.07.2014 within the jurisdiction of Police 
Station, Kamonki, District Gujranawala and allegedly brother of the 
complainant namely Iftikhar Ahmad was abducted by the petitioners and 
other accused in a black car.  
3. 
The petitioners moved an application for bail before arrest before the 
learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 8.07.2014 which was dismissed on merits on 
24.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners approached the learned High 
Court through Crl.Misc. No.14011-B/14 but vide order dated 11.11.2014, the 
same was withdrawn. Then another application was moved by the 
petitioners on 14.01.2015 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which was 
Crl.P.247/15 
2
dismissed on 31.01.2015. Thus, the petitioners moved their third application 
on 21.02.2015 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which was also 
dismissed on 10.03.2015. Against the said order the petitioners filed Crl.Misc. 
No.3522-B/15 before the learned High Court which was dismissed through 
the impugned order dated 9.04.2015. 
4. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that first bail application 
of the petitioners was dismissed on merits. However, after dismissal of the 
said application, fresh grounds were available to the petitioners as Section 
365 PPC was deleted by the investigating officer. Learned counsel further 
contends that this Court being the Apex Court can see facts and 
circumstances of the case and grant bail to the petitioners at this stage as 
well; that there are contradictions in the statement of the complainant in the 
FIR and statement of the abductee under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; that a private 
compliant has also been filed after 7/8 months and the benefit of all these 
contradictions goes to the accused and it is a fit case for confirmation of bail 
before arrest. Learned counsel further contends that the second application 
of the petitioners was dismissed on 31.01.2015 against which Crl.Misc. 
No.1474-B/15 was moved in the High Court and the High Court while 
disposing of the same granted protective bail to the petitioners after which 
they had moved third application before the Addl. Sessions Judge.  
5. 
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Addl. 
Prosecutor General, Punjab have opposed the bail of the petitioners on the 
ground that the petitioners have been nominated in the FIR with specific 
role; that so far none of the petitioners have been arrested and the challan has 
been submitted; that the petitioners are on pre-arrest bail and no report 
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 31.01.2015. 
6. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully 
perused the record.  
Crl.P.247/15 
3
7. 
Considerations for pre-arrest bail are totally different from that of 
post-arrest bail. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, whereas the post-
arrest bail is an ordinary relief. While seeking pre-arrest bail it is duty of 
accused to establish and prove mala fide on the part of the Investigating 
Agency or the complainant. Bail before arrest is meant to protect innocent 
citizens who have been involved in heinous offences with mala fide and 
ulterior motive. Admittedly the petitioners’ first bail application was 
dismissed on merit. It is also an admitted fact that against the order of 
dismissal of the said application, the petitioners moved Crl.Misc. No.14011-
B/14 before the learned High Court which was withdrawn vide order 
11.11.2014. Thus, the remedy available to the petitioners was finalized up to 
the High Court and the only forum available to the petitioners was to 
approach this Court. Bail before arrest cannot be granted unless person 
seeking it satisfy conditions specified under Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 
establishes existence of reasonable grounds leading to believe that he is not 
guilty of offence alleged against him and there are in fact sufficient grounds 
warranting further inquiry. If one fails to prove any mala fide or ulterior 
motive in the first pre-arrest bail petition before the learned Additional 
Sessions Judge or before the learned High Court then the only remedy 
available to him is of challenging the said order before this Court or before 
the learned High Court in case the bail before arrest is declined by the 
learned Sessions Court. Filing of pre-arrest bail petitions again and again 
amounts to misuse of law and it also increases the backlog of the Courts and 
this growing trend should have to be stopped by the learned Courts below. 
When the second application was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the 
petitioners, the petitioners could not avail the said remedy even after the 
deletion of Section 365 PPC by the investigating officer as it had attained 
finality but the petitioners adopted the policy of hide and seek by moving a 
Crl.P.247/15 
4
number of applications. In this respect the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has 
passed a well reasoned order. It has been pointed out that at the time of 
dismissal of second application, learned counsel for the petitioners requested 
the Court to grant protective bail to the petitioners in order to enable them to 
approach the concerned Court and the High Court without taking into 
consideration that the bail application, moved by the petitioners, has already 
been dismissed granted protective bail to the petitioners. We are constrained 
to hold that the learned Judge-in-Chambers while granting protective bail to 
the petitioners has not applied the correct law as their application could not 
be entertained.  
7. 
For what has been discussed above, without touching the merits of the 
case, the conduct of the petitioners is sufficient to dismiss this petition. 
Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.   
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD 
5th May, 2015 
APPROVED FOR  REPORTING 
(Nasir Khan)  
 
