IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.33 of 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court 
Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur in Cr. Misc. No.4127-B/2020) 
 
 
Muhammad Nadeem 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Muhammad Khurram Iqbal and another  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Nemo 
 
For Respondent No.1: 
Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, ASC with 
respondent. 
 
Mr. M. Sharif Janjua, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of Hearing: 
17.02.2022. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Impugned herein 
is order dated 11.01.2021 whereby a learned Judge-in-Chamber of 
the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur admitted 
Khurram Latif respondent to bail in anticipation to his arrest in a 
criminal case under sections 3, 4 of the Punjab Prohibition Money 
Lending Act, 2007, registered with Police Station City Sadiqabad on 
the complaint of Muhammad Nadeem petitioner.  
 
According to the petitioner, in the course of a business 
transaction, he borrowed a sum of Rs.150,000/- to be repaid 
through monthly installments of Rs.6000/- each, a terminal vicious 
circle 
that 
continued 
to 
burden 
him 
despite 
payment 
of 
Rs.500,000/-; as the petitioner exorbitantly raised the interest rate 
and also coerced him to issue bank cheques from his account, a 
sword of damocles over his head, trapped with no option, he finally 
laid information with the police and it is in this backdrop that 
Criminal Petition No.33 of 2021                                      2 
 
petitioner’s first attempt before a learned Additional Sessions Judge 
at Sadiqabad failed, however, upon his approach to the High Court 
he was granted judicial protection vide impugned order dated 
11.01.2021.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
What weighed with the learned Judge-in-Chamber to 
favourably exercise his extraordinary equitable jurisdiction in 
respondent’s favour, for the convenience of reference is reproduced 
below:- 
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 
having gone through the record, it reveals that although 
the petitioner is named in the FIR with the above said 
accusation of committing violation of provision of the Act 
ibid, but at the same time I observed that during the 
course of investigation, an arbitration/Panchayat was  
convened between the parties and arbitration deed was 
executed, in which it is categorically written that the 
present petitioner is not involved in any money lending 
and an amount of Rs.44,700/- is still outstanding 
against Muhammad Nadeem towards the present 
petitioner. In this regard, the complainant himself has 
sworn an affidavit, copy of the same is annexed with 
this petition, in which he has reiterated that the 
petitioner is  owner of Al-Medina Traders and he has no 
concern with the money lending and he further 
undertook 
to 
pay 
Rs.44700/- 
which 
were 
still 
outstanding against him. When this situation was put to 
the Investigating officer, present in court, he frankly 
conceded that an arbitration deed has been written 
between the parties.” 
 
The reasoning by itself unmistakably confirms subsistence of a 
dispute raging between the parties over payment of some 
outstanding amount. Upon a direction issued by this Court, District 
Police Officer Rahim Yar Khan confirmed that the impugned 
affidavit, relied upon by the High Court was secured by the 
respondent, through means stained with duress and coercion, an act 
by itself constituting an offence under the law; at worst, hardly 
furnishing a justification to extend a relief rooted into equity that too 
by suspending usual course of law, inevitably arrest in a cognizable 
criminal case. It is by now well settled that protection of pre-arrest 
bail is essentially a judicial protection to protect the innocent, being 
Criminal Petition No.33 of 2021                                      3 
 
targeted through abuse of process of law for motives, oblique and 
sinister; it is neither a substitute for post arrest bail nor a treatment 
to be extended in every run of the mill criminal case. It is an option 
that warrants caution in its exercise, seemingly ignored by the High 
Court. Criminal Petition is converted into appeal and allowed;  
pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent is cancelled.  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
17th February, 2022 
Azmat/- 
