IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 982-L OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 20.04.2022 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. 
Misc. No. 20379-B/2022) 
 
Shameem Bibi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State etc 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mian Shah Abbas, ASC 
 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
For the State:  
 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Bilal Sulehri, ASP 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Yasin, S.I.  
 
For the Respondent (2): 
Mr. Muhammad Irshad Ch, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
22.09.2022 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to 
grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 172 dated 02.02.2022 
under Sections 394/302/411/109 PPC at Police Station Mangamandi, 
Lahore, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as stated in the crime 
report is that on the fateful day and time, two brothers of the complainant 
namely Saifullah and Muhammad Nawaz were going towards Sundar 
Estate on motorbike. They were intercepted by the two unknown persons, 
who on gun point robbed mobile phones and cash amount from his 
brothers and thereafter made a fire shot in the head of Saifullah, who 
Criminal Petition No. 982-L/2022 
2
succumbed to the injuries at the spot. They also made a fire shot on the 
leg of the other brother namely Muhammad Nawaz. Subsequently, on the 
basis of supplementary statement of the complainant, the petitioner, who 
was wife of Saifullah, deceased, was implicated in the case. The allegation 
against her is that the whole occurrence was committed by the accused on 
her behest and she being in league with him provided him information as 
she was allegedly having illicit relations with one accused namely Waqas 
Akram.   
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been contended by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this 
case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that except the 
bald allegations as contained in the supplementary statement, there is no 
material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. 
Contends that the Call Data Record (CDR) is not a conclusive piece of 
evidence. Contends that during investigation nothing has been recovered 
from the petitioner. Contends that the petitioner is a woman of advanced 
age and she cannot be incarcerated without any tangible proof against 
her.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant has defended the impugned order declining 
bail to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has 
specifically been nominated in the supplementary statement for the 
commission of the offence, which entails capital punishment. It was lastly 
contended that according to the CDR, the petitioner was in contact with 
the alleged dacoit, who is charged with the murder of her husband, 
therefore, she does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record.  
 
 
Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the crime 
report and it was subsequent in time that she was implicated in the case 
on the supplementary statement of the complainant dated 03.02.2022. 
Criminal Petition No. 982-L/2022 
3
The only allegation against the petitioner is that the whole occurrence was 
committed by the accused on her abetment. However, no specific date, 
time and place where the conspiracy was hatched has been mentioned in 
the supplementary statement. Even name and number of witnesses to 
that extent is not available on the record. Perusal of Section 107 PPC 
reveals that three ingredients are essential to dub any person as 
conspirator i.e. (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with co-accused, and (iii) 
intentional aid qua the act or omission for the purpose of completion of 
abetment. All the three ingredients of Section 107 PPC are prima facie 
missing in this case.  We have specifically asked the learned Law Officer 
and the learned counsel for the complainant to show us from record any 
material, which could prima facie connect the petitioner with the 
commission of the crime but except the Call Data Record (CDR), they could 
not show us anything. This Court in a number of cases has held that in 
absence of any concrete material the Call Data Record is not a conclusive 
piece of evidence to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused. On our 
query, learned Law Officer admitted that as yet there is no evidence that 
the mobile phone belonged to the petitioner and the SIM was in her 
name. In these circumstances, the (Call Data Record) CDR in isolation does 
not advance the prosecution’s case unless and until some credible 
material in this regard has been collected. We have been informed that 
challan has already been submitted, which means that the petitioner is no 
more required for further investigation. The petitioner is a lady of 50 years 
of age, having five children left at home. This Court has time and again 
held that liberty of a person is a precious right guaranteed under the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the same cannot be 
taken away without exceptional foundations. Keeping in view the peculiar 
facts and circumstances of this case, keeping the petitioner behind the 
bars for an indefinite period would not be in the interest of justice. In 
these circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence 
would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the case of the 
petitioner squarely falls within the purview of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. 
Criminal Petition No. 982-L/2022 
4
entitling for further inquiry into her guilt. Consequently, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 
20.04.2022. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail 
bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The above are the detailed reasons of 
our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
22nd of September, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
