IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.280 of 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court Bannu Bench in B.A. No.49-B/2021) 
 
 
Muhammad Aurangzeb 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Karim Khan alias Abdul Karim Khan and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Rahman Ullah, ASC  
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Malik Nouman Khalid, ASC with 
respondent No.2 
 
Date of Hearing: 
02.12.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Karim Khan 
alias Abdul Karim Khan and Sabir Jan along with co-accused were 
arrayed as accused by the petitioner for committing Qatl-i-Amd of his 
brother Nematullah at 4:10 p.m. on 17.10.2020 within the precincts of 
Police Station Lakki Marwat; armed with Kalashnikovs, the assailants 
targeted the deceased in the backdrop of an ongoing blood feud. 
Autopsy report confirmed receipt of three entry wounds on different 
parts of body with corresponding exit. 46 casings of . 7.62 mm secured 
from the spot were forensically opined to have been fired from different 
weapons. The Investigating Officer held the respondents as participants 
in the crime; their request for bail was declined by the Court of 
Sessions, however, a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High 
Court Bannu Bench vide impugned order dated 18.02.2021 allowed 
them bail on the ground premised as under:- 
“There is no denial to the fact that the deceased lost his life 
owing to the firearm injuries, which led to a charge against 
Criminal Petition No.280 of 2021                                       2 
 
the petitioners and two others. Record tells that all the 
petitioners i.e. four in number are real brothers and that the 
complainant stated of having previous blood feud. True that 
the petitioners are directly charged but equally true that 
two real brothers from one and the same family have been 
charged for murder of the deceased and the deceased 
received four firearm injuries on his body where two of the 
entry wounds are caused on the vital part of his body, 
whereas two on non-vital parts. This court is to see as to 
whether it was the doing of one or more than one person; 
and that despite blood feud enmity the complainant 
escaped unhurt when he too was at mercy of the 
assailants. True that while seized of bail matter the court is 
to tentatively assess the material brought before it and 
deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted, but 
equally true that bail applications cannot be heard and 
decided in vacuum.” 
 
Vires of the above findings have been assailed as being factually 
incorrect as well as self-destructive, as according to the learned 
counsel, there existed reasonable grounds within the contemplation of 
section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to prima facie 
frame the respondents with the crime complained, punishable with 
death, thus, in the absence of any consideration calling for further 
probe, there was no occasion for the High Court to release them on bail 
for reasons imaginatively articulated. The learned counsel for the 
respondents defended the impugned order being well within the 
discretion of the Court. It is next argued that the courts are slow in the 
absence of strong and compelling reasons to recall freedom once 
granted by a competent tribunal.   
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
No doubt, grant of bail is a discretionary relief, however, it 
is most essential that exercise of discretion is structured upon sound 
judicial principles, in conformity with statutory parameters. Prima facie, 
prosecution evidence comprising statements of the complainant, eye-
witnesses and autopsy report, squarely constitute “reasonable grounds” 
insurmountably barricading respondents’ admission to bail in the 
absence of any consideration calling for further probe. We have also 
noted different parentage of the accused mentioned in the crime report 
to contradict the theory of all brothers in the dock. A conclusion based 
upon a wavering analysis with reference to judicial opinions hardly 
relevant in circumstances fails to commend our approval.  
Criminal Petition No.280 of 2021                                       3 
 
Grant of bail in disregard to the settled principles of law or on a 
premise factually incorrect, by itself, presents a conscionable 
justification to recall the concession; it does not require hypothetical or 
euphemistic strong grounds as an undue concession grievously 
militates against the fundamental principle of equal treatment to the 
people placed in identical situations with expectations consistent in 
their judicial pursuits. Petition is converted into appeal and allowed; 
impugned order dated  18.02.2021 is set aside; bail granted thereunder 
is cancelled. Respondents be taken into custody so as to confront their 
indictment before the trial Court.  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
2nd December, 2021 
Azmat/- 
