IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi  
 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.475 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 15.04.2022 passed by the  
Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Crl. Misc. No.11519-B of 2022) 
 
 
Amir Faraz  
 
 
 
… 
… 
 
Petitioner   
 
 
 
 
     Versus 
The State    
 
 
 
… 
… 
 
Respondent 
 
For the appellant  : 
Mian Pervaz Hussain, ASC  
 
 
 
 
(via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, AOR  
 
For the State  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl. PG Pb 
 
 
 
 
(via video link from Lahore) 
 
For respondent No.2 : 
Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani, ASC  
 
Date of hearing 
: 
08.12.2022 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.- Through this Criminal 
Petition, Amir Faraz complainant of case FIR No.201/2021, dated 
15.05.2021, registered at Police Station City Farooqabad, District 
Sheikhupura, impugns the order dated 15.04.2022, through which 
post arrest bail was granted to respondent No.2-Nadeem Zulf who 
is accused in the above said FIR.  
2. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends 
that within one hour and twenty minutes of the occurrence, the 
matter was reported to the police and in the said prompt FIR it was 
specifically mentioned that respondent Nadeem Zulf fired with his 
pistol hitting Naseem Zulf deceased on right side of his forehead, 
who succumbed to the said injury; that Nadeem Zulf alongwith 
others committed murder of his two brothers (Naseem Zulf and 
Waseem Zulf) when they were present in the land of Naseem Zulf, 
the brother-in-law of the complainant; that it is an occurrence 
Crl.P.475/2022 
2
wherein two brothers have been done to death by their own brother 
Nadeem Zulf and others; that the statements of the eye witnesses 
are available on record confirming the prosecution version 
mentioned in the FIR; that the High Court while granting bail to 
the respondent has relied upon the opinion of the second 
Investigating Officer which was based upon a single case Diary 
dated 22.09.2021, when Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and 
Muhammad Ishtiaq made statements that, when they were passing 
near the place of occurrence, they saw the accused and 
complainant party quarreling with each other; that said  Rizwan 
Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq earlier appeared 
before the Investigating Officer, but after about four months they 
took another stance before the second Investigating Officer and on 
their assertion the said Investigating Officer concluded that 
although the respondent was present there but he was empty 
handed; that said Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad 
Ishtiaq neither made witnesses in this case nor their statements 
under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) were 
recorded and even their names were not mentioned in the report 
under section 173 of the Code; that according to the second 
Investigating Officer, the complainant party was aggressor but 
surprisingly no one from the respondent’s side received even a 
single scratch but on the other hand, two persons lost their lives 
from the side of the complainant party; that no cross-case was ever 
got registered by the respondent’s side against the complainant 
party regarding their alleged aggression; that respondent after 
getting bail is misusing the concession of bail by hampering the 
trial as on 18.03.2022 the charge was framed and thereafter, on 
numerous dates of hearing, the witnesses had appeared but the 
defence counsel avoided again and again by requesting for 
adjournment; that, on the other hand, the respondent is 
pressurizing his own family members including the complainant 
not to pursue the case against him; that the misuse of concession 
of bail can be considered from this fact that on 18.07.2022, 
statements of two witnesses were recorded but on the request of 
the defence counsel the cross-examination was reserved and they 
have not been cross-examined till now.  
Crl.P.475/2022 
3
3. 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, at 
the very outset, relied upon the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. the 
State (PLD 2018 SC 595) and contends that it is the duty of the 
Investigation Officer to dig out the truth which was done in this 
case;  that it was the case of Hanan Zulf son of Nadeem Zulf that 
he actually committed murder of both the deceased when they 
made aggression upon respondent Nadeem Zulf; that from the 
place of occurrence six crime empties were recovered and found 
wedded with the pistol which was recovered from Hanan Zulf; that 
bail was granted by a competent Court and cannot be cancelled 
until the order is perverse, patently illegal and factually incorrect  
and has resulted into miscarriage of justice which is lacking in this 
case; that as trial has commenced, bail should not be cancelled. 
Besides Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) the learned counsel has relied 
upon certain other judgment in the cases of Muhammad Sharif vs. 
Shafqat Hussain alias Shaukat etc (1999 SCMR 338), Sami Ullah 
and another vs. Laiq Zada and another (2020 SCMR 1115), Sidra 
Abbas vs. the State and another (2020 SCMR 2089) and 
Muhammad Shoaib vs. the State and another (2022 SCMR 
326).  
 
Lastly contends that the co-accused Hasan Iqbal who fired 
upon the other deceased namely Waseem Zulf hitting on his right 
arm, was granted bail by the High Court while taking into 
consideration his role and opinion of the Police Officer and case of 
the respondent is at par with the case of Hasan Iqbal, co-accused 
4. 
Learned Addl. PG., while supporting the arguments of the 
learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that 
commencement of trial is not a hurdle when bail granting order is 
perverse and factually incorrect, as in the present case, the 
impugned order is based upon an opinion of a Police Officer which 
is not backed by strong material and data; that bail was granted to 
the respondent when charge had already been framed and if bail 
can be granted when trial had already been commenced, the same 
can be cancelled on the same principle; that due to the dispute 
over the inherited property, the respondent committed murder of 
his two real brothers and in that eventuality, he was not entitled to 
concession of bail, especially when the subsequent investigation 
Crl.P.475/2022 
4
was not based on solid material. Further contends that although 
six empties were recovered from the place of occurrence and the 
same were found to have been fired from the weapon recovered 
from Hanan Zulf but said recovery is just a corroborative piece of 
evidence and even the negative report of FSL being a corroborative 
piece of evidence cannot be considered at the time of grant or 
refusal of a bail. On the other hand, the deceased Waseem Zulf 
received the injuries having different dimensions and the injury 
attributed to the respondent on the person of Naseem Zulf was 
totally of different dimension than the injuries on the person of 
Waseem Zulf, indicating that different weapons had been used in 
the occurrence.  
5. 
Heard, perused the record. Although two persons lost their 
lives but complainant thereafter approached the Police while going 
to the Police Station and lodged the report within one hour and 
twenty minutes of the occurrence, when the Police Station was at a 
distance of 2½ kilometers and while lodging the FIR, he 
categorically attributed fatal injury on the head of Naseem Zulf 
deceased, to respondent Nadeem Zulf. He is the sole accused who 
caused solitary fatal firearm injury with pistol to Naseem Zulf 
deceased, whereas the remaining accused fired upon other 
deceased i.e. Waseem Zulf. A specific pistol shot injury is 
attributed to respondent Nadeem Zulf which got full support from 
the medical evidence and the injury attributed to him was 
sufficient to cause death of the said deceased. The witnesses 
mentioned in the FIR, got recorded their statements on the same 
day under section 161 of the Code and supported the version put 
forward by the complainant in the FIR.  
6. 
In the earlier investigation the respondent was found guilty 
but 
subsequently 
the 
Investigation 
was 
conducted 
by 
SHO/Investigating Officer who, after recording the statements of 
Rizwan Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq on 
22.9.2021, opined that although the respondent was present at the 
place of occurrence but he was empty handed. According to 
learned Addl. PG., the three witnesses even appeared before the 
earlier Investigating Officer but they again appeared before the 
second Investigating Officer after more than four months and 
Crl.P.475/2022 
5
stated that they saw both the parties quarreling. We have observed 
that while relying upon their assertion, the Investigating Officer 
opined as mentioned above. No independent statement of Rizwan 
Akram, Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Ishtiaq under section 161 
of the Code, was recorded. They were not mentioned in the report 
under section 173 of the Code as PWs in this case. Except the 
above mentioned statement of these witnesses, no other material 
was collected by the second Investigating Officer who opined that it 
was the complainant party who was aggressor. According to the 
Investigating Officer Hanan Zulf, one of the accused, claimed that 
he had committed the murder of these persons. Although the 
second Investigating Officer opined that complainant party was 
aggressor but surprisingly, nobody from the respondent side 
received even a single scratch. The Investigating Officer did not 
make effort to get recorded the statement of Hanan Zulf under 
section 164 of the Code, so a bald inadmissible statement of co-
accused that too, before the police, was taken into consideration 
for forming such opinion. No doubt, the opinion of the 
Investigating Officer has some persuasive value, if the same is 
based upon a strong and concrete material which is lacking in the 
present case.  
7. 
We have also observed that Nadeem Zulf respondent, 
alongwith two co-accused earlier filed petition for protective pre-
arrest bail before the Lahore High Court and in the said petition, it 
is nowhere asserted that complainant party was aggressor nor any 
ground regarding cross-version, was agitated, meaning thereby 
that at that time, this plea was not taken by the respondent and 
was subsequently agitated, due to which the subsequent 
Investigating Officer formed the said opinion and due to this 
circumstance his opinion has no persuasive value at the stage of 
bail and it would be the trial Court which after recording the 
evidence will appreciate this aspect of the case.  
 
As far as the cases referred by the learned counsel regarding 
opinion of the Investigating Officer is concerned, the facts of 
Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) are different because in the present 
case the respondent side did not make any effort to lodge any 
report regarding the aggression of the complainant side and even 
Crl.P.475/2022 
6
any private complaint was never filed by the respondent side 
against the complainant party. We have also observed that in 
Sughran Bibi’s case (supra) it was observed that it is the duty of 
the Investigating Officer to dig out the truth but the said exercise 
should be based upon concrete admissible material and not a bald 
opinion, and Courts are not bound to accept the bald opinion of 
any Investigating Officer which is not based upon a reasonable, 
plausible and strong material. Even otherwise, Sughran Bibi’s case 
(supra) has different facts and was decided on different proposition 
i.e. regarding registration of second or subsequent FIR. 
8. 
It is settled that in criminal matters, each case has its own 
peculiar facts and circumstances and the same has to be decided 
on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically 
nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injury on the head of the 
deceased and the said injury was spelt out from the medical 
evidence. He was found involved in the commission of offence in 
the first investigation and the ipse dixit of the second Investigating 
Officer, especially in the above mentioned circumstances, had no 
persuasive value. Although learned counsel for the respondent has 
relied upon certain judgments and even the learned counsel for the 
petitioner has also placed reliance on certain judgments qua 
opinion of the Investigating Officer but we observe that in all the 
said judgments, the basic thing, which has to be considered by the 
Court, is whether the said opinion is based upon cogent and 
concrete material. In the absence of any material/data no credit 
can be given to such ipse dixit of the Police Officer. If the plea i.e. 
ipse dixit of the police, on the basis of which the respondent has 
been released on bail is accepted, the same would amount to 
discredit the version of the eye witnesses at this initial stage of the 
case which of course is not permissible in the peculiar 
circumstances of the case. The practice adopted by the learned 
High Court through the impugned order is not appreciable. The 
High Court while granting bail to the respondent has ignored the 
relevant material indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the 
accused in the commission of the crime and took into account 
irrelevant material which had no nexus to the question of grant of 
bail to the accused. It is settled law that bail granting order could 
be cancelled if the same was perverse. An order which is, inter-alia, 
Crl.P.475/2022 
7
entirely against the weight of the evidence on record, by ignoring 
material evidence on record indicating, prima-facie, involvement of 
the accused in the commission of crime, is always considered as a 
perverse order, which is in present case as material evidence on 
the record brought by prosecution promptly, was not given any 
weight by the High Court and a perverse order was passed upon a 
baled opinion of second Investigating Officer.  
9. 
So for principle of rule of consistency is concerned, although 
Hasan Iqbal was granted post arrest bail by the High Court vide 
order dated 18.01.2022 but we observed that he was attributed a 
fire shot, hitting on right arm of Waseem Zulf another deceased 
but said injury was not fatal and was not the cause of death. In 
that eventuality, learned counsel for the respondent could not 
satisfy our query as to how respondent’s case is at par with Hasan 
Iqbal because the fire shot attributed to the present respondent, on 
the head of Naseem Zulf, was the cause of death. So far argument 
of the learned counsel for respondent that six empties recovered 
from the place of occurrence were found to have been fired from 
the pistol allegedly recovered from Hanan Zulf, cannot be 
considered at this stage as the same at the most could be 
considered as a corroborative piece of evidence but in the present 
case there is substantive ocular account, whose names are 
mentioned in the FIR. Likewise, non-recovery of weapon from the 
respondent is not sufficient for not cancelling the bail because it is 
always considered as a corroborative piece of evidence. It is settled 
principle of law that corroboratory piece of evidence, if missing, 
cannot discard the ocular account recorded on the day of 
occurrence, at bail stage. 
10. 
So far argument of the learned counsel that the trial has 
commenced, we observed that the charged was framed on 
18.03.2022 but the High Court granted bail to respondent on 
15.4.2022 when trial had already been commenced and if bail can 
be granted after the commencement of trial, the same can be 
cancelled even after the commencement of trial, especially when 
bail granting order is perverse and based upon ipse dixit of Police, 
which is not based upon strong material or data. Of course, bail 
Crl.P.475/2022 
8
can be cancelled if bail granting order is erroneous and resulted 
into miscarriage of justice, as done in this case.   
11. 
It is also a circumstance that after getting bail, according to 
learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is misusing the 
same by hampering the trial as on numerous dates of hearing the 
prosecution witnesses appeared before the Court but their 
statements were not recorded on the request of defence counsel. 
Even on 18.07.2022, statements of two prosecution witnesses were 
recorded but their cross-examination was reserved on the request 
of the defence counsel and subsequently, till date, the said 
witnesses have not been cross-examined. This aspect of the case is 
also indicative of the fact that the bail is being mis-used by 
hampering the trial. Even otherwise, no hard and fast rule can be 
laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely for the reason 
that the trial has commenced or is likely to commence because 
every case is to be examined in the light of its own facts, and the 
crucial question that arises for determination would be as to 
whether a person is entitled to grant of bail under the provision of 
section 497 Cr.P.C. which, as already observed, the respondent 
was not entitled to, especially, when there is sufficient material 
available against him in the shape of ocular account as well as the 
medical evidence and the circumstance that he alongwith other 
accused committed the murder of his two real brothers. The 
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, 
to this effect, having different facts and circumstances, could not 
be applied in this case. 
12. 
All the above mentioned circumstances have been ignored by 
the High Court while granting bail to the respondent, record to that 
extent has not been examined by the High Court and same order 
can be considered as perverse, because the material collected by 
the first Investigating Officer, on the day first, was totally ignored 
by the High Court while granting bail in such a double murder 
case.   
13. 
Due to the above mentioned reasons, while converting this 
petition into an appeal the same is allowed and the impugned 
order passed by the High Court is set aside and the bail granted to 
Crl.P.475/2022 
9
the respondent Nadeem Zulf is hereby cancelled/recalled. The 
above observations are tentative in nature and will have no bearing 
upon subsequent proceedings during trial as the trial Court is 
required to decide the case on its own merits and the evidence 
recorded during the trial, without being influenced by this order. 
These are the reasons of our short order dated 08.12.2022, which 
is reproduced as under : 
“For reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted 
into appeal and allowed. Bail already granted to the 
respondent is hereby recalled.”  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
09.01.2023 
M.Saeed/* 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crl.P.475/2022 
10
* Even otherwise, no hard and fast rule can be laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely for the reason that the trial has commenced or is likely to 
commence because every case is to be examined in the light of its own facts, and the crucial question that arises for determination would be as to whether a 
person is entitled to grant of bail under the provision of section 497 Cr.P.C. which, as already observed, the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail 
especially when there is sufficient material available against him in the shape of ocular account as well as the medical evidence and the circumstance that he 
alongwith other accused committed the murder of his two real brothers. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, having different 
facts and circumstances could not be relied upon in this case. 
 
** It is settled that in criminal matters, each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same has to be decided on its own facts. In the present 
case, the petitioner is specifically nominated for causing firearm injury on the head of the deceased and the said injury was spelt out from the medical evidence. 
He was found involved in the commission of offence in the first investigation and the ipse dixit of the investigating officer, especially in the above mentioned 
circumstances, had no persuasive value. Although learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon certain judgments and even the learned counsel for the 
petitioner has also placed reliance on certain judgments qua opinion of the investigating officer but we observe that in all the said judgments, the basic thing, 
which has to be considered by the Court, is whether the said opinion is based upon cogent and concrete material. In the absence of any material/data no credit 
can be given to such ipse dixit of the police officer. If the plea i.e. ipse dixit of the police, on the basis of which the respondent has been released on bail is 
accepted, the same would amount to discredit the version of the eye witnesses at this initial stage of the case which of course is not permissible in the peculiar 
circumstances of the case. The practice adopted by the learned High Court through the impugned order is not appreciable. The High Court while granting bail to 
the respondent has ignored the relevant material indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime and took into account 
irrelevant material which had no nexus to the question of grant of bail to the accused. It is settled law that bail granting order could be cancelled if the same was 
perverse. A perverse order was defined as an order which was, inter-alia, entirely against the weight of the evidence on record, by ignoring material evidence on 
record indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the respondent in the commission of crime.  
 
 
Due to the above mentioned reasons, while converting this petition into an appeal, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the bail granted 
to the respondent is hereby recalled. These are the reasons of our short order dated 08.12.2022 which is reproduced as under : 
“For reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Bail already granted to the respondent is hereby recalled.” 
