IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1392 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 05.09.2022 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court 
Hyderabad in Criminal Bail Application No. S-
760/2022) 
 
Muhammad Nawaz @ Karo 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
The State 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Malik Altaf Hussain Kandawal, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. P.G. 
Mr. Nabi Bux, SI 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Junaid Iftikhar Mirza, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
08.12.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
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 05.09.2022 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the learned High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court 
Hyderabad, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide 
FIR No. 05/2022 dated 11.05.2022 under Sections 395/342/506-II PPC at 
Police Station Thebath, District Jamshoro, 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 firearm robbed Toyota Corolla car 
of the complainant along with cash amounting to Rs.65000/- and a driving 
license.  
Criminal Petition No. 1392/2022 
2
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 crime report 
was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than nine months for which 
no plausible explanation has been given. Contends that during 
investigation, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner, 
which could connect him with the commission of the crime. Contends that 
the learned High Court while declining bail to the petitioner has not 
followed the guidelines issued by this Court for the safe administration of 
criminal justice, therefore, the same may be set at naught and the 
petitioner may by released on bail.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned  
counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition. It has been 
contended that although the crime report was registered with an 
inordinate delay of more than nine months but there was no mala fide on 
the part of the complainant. It has been contended that the complainant 
was himself trying to find the robbed property and when he came to know 
that it was the petitioner who robbed his car, he approached him but the 
petitioner kept him on false hopes, thereafter, he lodged the crime report.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
 
 
As per the contents of the crime report, on 26.07.2021 the 
petitioner along with co-accused while armed with firearms robbed Toyota 
Corolla car of the complainant along with Rs.65000/- and a driving license. 
However, the formal crime report for the same was lodged on 11.05.2022 
after a lapse of nine months and sixteen days. The only explanation given 
by the complainant is that he was himself trying to find the robbed 
property. When he got to know that it was the petitioner who has 
allegedly robbed his car, he approached him to return his property and on 
his refusal he lodged the crime report. We are afraid, this explanation 
cannot be accepted. The record is silent as to on which date, the 
complainant got the information and when did he approach the petitioner. 
Criminal Petition No. 1392/2022 
3
There is also nothing on record to indicate as to why the petitioner kept 
mum for such a long period of time and did not even bother to inform the 
Police. We have been informed that no recovery has been affected from 
the petitioner despite of the fact that he remained with the police on 
physical remand for a considerable period of time. So far as ‘criminal 
intimidation’ is concerned, the same has been defined in Section 503 PPC. 
A bare perusal of this provision of law makes it clear that whenever an 
overt act is materialized and ended into an overt act, the provision of 
Section 506(ii) PPC would not be applicable and the only provision which 
will remain in the field is the overt act, which is committed in consequence 
of criminal intimidation. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more 
than five months. This court has time and again held that liberty of a 
person is a precious right, which cannot be taken away unless there are 
exceptional grounds to do so. Merely on the basis of bald allegations, the 
liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. In these circumstances, the 
petitioner has made out a case for bail as his case squarely falls within the 
purview of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt, 
which even otherwise does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Grant of 
bail in such like cases is a rule whereas refusal is mere an exception.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022. 
The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the 
sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction 
of learned Trial Court.  
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
8th of December, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
