IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 656-L OF 2021 
(On appeal against the order dated 28.04.2021 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 
21377-B/2021) 
 
Shahid Abbas 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State etc 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Hamayun Rashid Ch, ASC a/w 
petitioner 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G.  
 
Mr. Ejaz Ahmed, SI 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
12.10.2021 
 
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 
28.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore, with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail in case 
registered vide FIR No. 33 dated 11.01.2021 under Sections 
452/337-A(ii)/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/448/511/148/149 PPC at Police 
Station 
Bhawana, 
District 
Chiniot 
in 
the 
interest 
of 
safe 
administration of criminal justice.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is 
that he along with co-accused while armed with firearms and ‘sotas’ 
trespassed into the house of the complainant while causing injuries 
to him. Petitioner’s pre-arrest bail was declined by the learned Trial 
Court vide order dated 24.03.2021 and it also met the same fate 
before the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 
28.04.2021. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.   
3. 
 
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the 
petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts 
Criminal Petition No. 656-L/2021 
2
and circumstances due to connivance of the complainant with local 
police. Further contends that the FIR of the alleged occurrence was 
registered after a delay of 23 days, which shows deliberation and 
consultation on the part of the complainant. Lastly contends that the 
medico legal report was obtained prior to the occurrence, which 
speaks volume on the conduct of the complainant.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended 
the impugned order declining bail to the petitioner. He contends that 
the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the crime report 
with a specific allegation of causing ‘sota’ blow on the left side of 
head of the complainant, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency 
by this Court.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the record.  
 
 
There is no denial to the fact that the FIR of the 
occurrence was got recorded after an inordinate delay of about 23 
days for which no plausible explanation has been given. It was the 
stance of the complainant that the alleged occurrence took place on 
19.12.2020 at about 9/10 PM in night but surprisingly, the medico 
legal report had been obtained prior to the occurrence and the same 
shows that the injured was examined at 2.10 PM on 19.12.2020 i.e. 
about 7/8  hours prior to the occurrence. As per the contents of the 
crime report, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he firstly 
caught hold of the complainant and thereafter, he gave a ‘sota’ blow 
on the left side of his head. However, we have found that the injured 
was examined by a medical board and so far as the injury on his 
head is concerned, the report shows that the possibility of 
fabrication cannot be ruled out.  It is an admitted position that civil 
litigation is pending between the parties. Keeping in view the facts 
and circumstances of this case, the possibility of false implication of 
the petitioner cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, it is the 
Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the 
guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Prima facie there are sufficient 
grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioner is 
fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to 
his guilt.  
Criminal Petition No. 656-L/2021 
3
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order dated 
28.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner 
vide this Court’s order dated 23.07.2021.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the  
12th of October, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
