IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020  
(Against order dated 15.4.2020 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench in 
Crl. Misc. No.BA No.142-B/2020) 
 
 
Kamran Ullah 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Talat Mehmood Zaidi, ASC 
 
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Anis M. Shahzad, ASC 
 
with Umar Nawaz, ASI 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Dil M. Khan Alizai, ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
06.07.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aftab Alam, 35/36, 
left home at about 7:00 p.m.; his wife, as stated by him, expected her to 
return shortly thereafter, however, upon failure to return, became 
suspicious and informed her brother-in-law at 2:00 a.m.; his mobile 
handset did not respond multiple attempts. Search started in the 
morning to find the dead body lying in a pool of blood in a field; he was 
done to death by unknown assailant(s) with fire shots; stricken by 
shock, the family was clueless about the motive behind the crime.  
As investigation progressed, the petitioner was taken on board as a 
suspect on the basis of complainant’s supplementary statement dated 
26.2.2020 wherein Sajid Ali Shah was also arrayed as an accomplice 
for the murder in the backdrop of a monetary dispute; the latter 
pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol, 
a weapon that did not forensically tally with the casings secured during 
 Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020   
2
spot inspection. Semi burnt cell phone handsets used by the deceased, 
concealed underneath the soil, were recovered at petitioner’s instance 
vide inventory dated 25.2.2020.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Be that as it may, complainant’s strong belief about 
petitioner’s culpability notwithstanding, evidentiary value of various 
pieces of prosecution evidence hitherto collected has to survive judicial 
scrutiny to cross the barriers of rules of evidence; the exercise has 
admittedly not yet commenced. Prosecution for the present is not 
possessed with any digital proof to establish subscriptive nexus 
between the deceased and the handsets. Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) 
purportedly suggestive of conversation between the deceased and the 
accused shortly before his death, nonetheless, sans contents/details 
thereof.  Without prejudice to the merits of the prosecution case, to be 
essentially settled by the trial Court, nonetheless, petitioner’s case 
squarely falls within the remit of subsection 2 of section 497 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; a case for his release on bail stands 
made out. Criminal Petition No.500 of 2020 is converted into appeal 
and allowed; petitioner/appellant shall be released on his furnishing 
bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two sureties each in the like 
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge.     
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
6th July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
