IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Bench-I:
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
Crl.P.253-L/2025
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore
dated 18.02.2025 passed in Crl. Misc.No.5460-B/2025)
Rab Nawaz
… Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shehzad Hassan, etc.
… Respondent(s)
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Aqib Javed Malik, AHC
(With permission of the Court)
For the State: Rana Abdul Majid, APG, Pb.
For the respondent(s): Respondents-in-person.
Date of hearing: 26.03.2025
ORDER
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.- The petitioner seeks leave
to appeal against the order dated 18.02.2025 whereby post-arrest
bail was granted to respondent No.1 in case FIR No.203/2023
dated 22.02.2023 registered at Police Station Bhalwal City, District
Sargodha in respect of offences under Sections 302/427/109/34-
PPC. The petitioner seeks cancellation of the same through the
instant petition.
2. Briefly stated, the contents of the crime report reveal
that the petitioner is alleged to have, on 22.02.2023 at
approximately 11:00 a.m., acted in concert with a co-accused, both
armed with weapons, and fired five shots, resulting in the murder
of Asad Ahmad, the brother of the complainant.
3. The precise facts that formed the basis for grant of
post-arrest bail to respondent No.1 are that the test identification
parade was held on 25.09.2023 after a period of seven months of
occurrence, therefore, the value of such a test identification parade
can best be determined during trial and the recovery of
Crl. P. 253-L of 2025 2
Kalashnikov is at best a corroborative piece of evidence which
cannot be singularly used to decline bail.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record with their able assistance. The scope of
the interference to be made by this Court in its appellate
jurisdiction, in matters of cancellation of bail are well settled and
hardly need reiteration. Bail, though a concession granted to
ensure the liberty of an accused pending trial, is not an
unqualified right and can be withdrawn, if misused. The law
recognizes that bail may be cancelled if the accused, after securing
release, engages in conduct that undermines the administration of
justice. Such grounds include attempts to influence or intimidate
witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing another offence
while on bail, or violating conditions imposed by the court.
Furthermore, if the accused fails to appear before the court
without just cause, or if new facts come to light that materially
alter the basis on which bail was granted, the court may justifiably
revoke the concession. The guiding principle remains that the
liberty of an individual must be balanced against the need to
ensure a fair trial and uphold public confidence in the justice
system.
5. Other than the above, the principles evolved for
examining a bail granting order for the purpose of cancellation, the
court usually interferes on two grounds: (i) when the impugned
order is perverse on the face of it, or (ii) when the impugned order
has been made in clear disregard of some principle of the law of
bail.1 A perverse order is the one that has been passed against the
weight of the material on the record or by ignoring such material or
without giving reasons;2 such order is also termed as arbitrary,
whimsical and capricious. While it is one of the elementary
principles of the law of bail that courts are not to indulge in the
exercise of a deeper appreciation of material available on record at
the bail stage and are only to determine tentatively, by looking at
such material, whether or not there exist any “reasonable grounds”
for believing that the accused person is guilty of the alleged
1
Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11.
2
Sidra Abbas v. State 2020 SCMR 2089.
Crl. P. 253-L of 2025 3
offence.3 None of these grounds for cancellation of bail are
attracted in the present case. Consequently, we are not inclined to
interfere in the impugned order of the High Court. Accordingly,
leave to appeal is declined and this petition is dismissed.
Judge
Lahore,
26th March, 2025. Judge
Approved for reporting.
Iqbal/Umer A. Ranjha, LC*
3
Farid v. Ghulam Hussan 1968 SCMR 924 and Khalid Saigol v. State PLD 1962 SC 495.
