IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 701 OF 2023 
(On appeal against the order dated 29.05.2023 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 
12514-B/2023) 
 
Ch. Saeed Ahmed Khalil 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State etc 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Malik Jawwad Khalid, ASC  
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR a/w 
petitioner in person 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Ashgar Ali, SI/IO 
Mr. Ahsanullah, SI, Incharge Investigation 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Muhammad Javed Ch, ASC  
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
11.08.2023 
 
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 29.05.2023 passed by the learned 
Single Judge of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant 
pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 464 dated 18.03.2020 under 
Sections 420/468/471 PPC at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore, in the interest 
of safe administration of criminal justice.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the prosecution story as narrated in the crime 
report is that the petitioner’s son namely Furqan Saeed was employed in the 
complainant’s factory wherein the spare parts of the motorbikes were 
manufactured and its scrap was used to be sold in the market. The said 
Furqan Saeed used to take scrap from factory and got it weighed. Allegedly, 
he used to get two receipts, one of full weight and the second of lesser 
weight and despite receiving full amount used to deposit less amount to the 
Criminal Petition No. 701/2023 
2
factory. On suspicion, the record was checked and the son of the petitioner 
was found to have caused a loss of Rs.700,00,000/- to the complainant. The 
petitioner has been implicated through a supplementary statement of the 
complainant recorded on 26.06.2023.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the 
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the 
actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations leveled against 
the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and the prosecution 
story is not worthy of credit. Contends that the petitioner was not named in 
the FIR and the subsequent story put forth by the complainant in his 
supplementary statement recorded after three months of lodging of FIR does 
not appeal to a prudent mind. Contends that the principal accused namely 
Furqan Saeed has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent 
jurisdiction, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner also 
deserves the same treatment to be meted out.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition by contending that the 
petitioner has specifically been nominated by the complainant in the 
supplementary statement with a specific role of depriving him of a huge 
amount, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. 
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, the complainant is the 
CEO of Yousaf Engineering (Pvt) Ltd where spare parts of motorcycle are 
manufactured and its scrap is sold to the scrap dealers. The son of the 
petitioner namely Furqan Saeed was servant of the complainant, who had 
been taking scrap to get it weighed and later sold to scrap dealer. Allegedly, 
the said Furqan Saeed used to obtain two receipts, one of full weight and the 
later of less weight and used to deposit the amount in factory in accordance 
with the receipt of less weight and thereby caused a loss of Rs.700,00,000/- 
to the complainant. We have noted that the complainant nominated the 
present petitioner and his other family members in his supplementary 
Criminal Petition No. 701/2023 
3
statement recorded on 26.06.2023 after lapse of more than three months 
and eight days of the occurrence. A bare perusal of the record depicts that 
the entire fraudulent transaction took place in a span of more than two years 
and no specific dates for commission of fraud have been given. The only basis 
to involve the petitioner in the case was the detail of his bank account, as the 
complainant suspected that the principal accused Furqan Saeed would have 
deposited the amount in petitioner’s account. It is the case of the petitioner 
that his son Furqan Saeed was running a joint business with the complainant 
and he never received any salary from him. We have been informed that the 
co-accused of the petitioner namely Mst. Nighat Saeed, Waqas Zafar and 
Usman Saeed have been granted pre-arrest bail whereas the principal 
accused Furqan Saeed has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of 
competent jurisdiction. In these circumstances any order by this Court on any 
technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest 
bail are entirely on different footing would be only limited upto the arrest of 
the petitioner because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would be 
entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. 
Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. 
Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali and others Vs. The State and others 
(2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal Vs. The State and another (2022 
SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State through Prosecutor General of 
Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424). Keeping in view the peculiar facts 
and circumstances of the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out 
that the petitioner has been involved in the case by throwing a wider net by 
the complainant. Mere fraud of huge amount is no ground to decline bail to 
an accused. It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the 
merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on 
Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State 
(PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & 
Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). This Court in a number of 
cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be 
taken away without exceptional foundations. So far as the argument of the 
learned counsel for the complainant that another case of similar nature has 
been registered against the petitioner is concerned, mere registration of 
Criminal Petition No. 701/2023 
4
other criminal case against an accused does not disentitle him for the grant 
of bail if on merits he has a prima facie case. Reliance is placed on Moundar 
and others Vs. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934). Taking into consideration all the 
facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the case of the 
petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling 
for further inquiry into his guilt. 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and confirm the ad 
interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order 
dated 27.07.2023.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
 
 
