Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3100
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3100. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa) DECISION DATE: 22-04-2026 TAGLINE: Doubtful medical evidence regarding the alleged finger fracture, allegedly caused without any corresponding injury to the remaining part of the hand, prima facie suggests a friendly-handed occurrence, thereby making out a case for the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. CASE DETAILS: Crl. Misc. 15322/26 ============================================================ FORM No. HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Misc. No. 15322-B of 2026
Umar Farooq Vs. The State, etc.
Sr. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of Parties’ counsel, where necessary 22.04.2026 Mr. Muhammad Ahsen Nizami, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Pannun, DDPP. Mr. Shahbaz Ali Bhatti, Advocate for complainant. Rasheed S.I. along with record.
Umar Farooq, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a cross version recorded under Sections 337 - F(v), 337 -A(i), 337 -L(ii), 148, 149 P.P.C., in case/F.I.R. No.575 dated 11.07.2023, registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal, Kasur. 2. The specific blame against the petitioner recorded in the cross -version of the F.I.R. is that he inflicted pistol butt blow on the head of Waris Ali complainant of cross version, who forwarded his hand to save his head and the ring figure of his right hand was fractured. 3. Hearkened, record perused. 4. Tentative perusal of the record would reflect that the cross -version has been recorded after an unexplained and inordinate delay. The medical expert who initially examined Waris Ali /injured under the police docket observed, regarding the injury on the hand of the said injured, as “2cm x 4cm diffuse swelling is present on right wrist both on dorsal and ventral aspect of wrist overlaying carpel and meta carpel bones movement is painful at the finger of whole hand, but there is no any bruise or impact of any weapon present, injection Crl. Misc. No. 15322-B of 2026 2
marks also present.” with the observation in the relevant column of MLR relating to possibility of fabrication, if any as ‘Yes’. The produced record indicates that the complainant party of the cross - version/injured, while exercising his legal right, moved for constitution of a District Standing Medical Board and succeeded therein; however, despite re -examination, the said District Standing Medical Board affirmed the observations of the first doctor with the remarks recorded in the relevant column as “ In the light of re -examination conducted by the District Standing Medical Board, perusal of MLR issued by 1st examiner, all the members of District Standing Medical Board are unanimously of the opinion that there is nothing to disagree with IMLO regarding injur y No.01 and 02”. The aggrieved then proceeded further and a Provincial Medical Board was constituted, which returned a favourable opinion for him with the words set out at serial No.13 as “ Possibility of fabrication with reasoning Yes, f or injury No.1, as dimension & c onfiguration of injury does not correlate with weapon of infliction, stated in history (firearm). No for injury No.2 as manner of infliction stated in history correlates with injury .” The observation relating to injury No.1, showing possibility of fabrication as ‘Yes’, prima facie reflects adulteration on the part of the injured. No doubt, the Provincial Board differed from the opinion of the basic medical examiner as well as the District Standing Medical Board to the extent of injury No.2, rec ording the possibility of fabrication as ‘No’. Crl. Misc. No. 15322-B of 2026 3
5. The injured was first medically examined on 01.07.2023 shortly after the occurrence, whereas the process of re-examination before the Provincial Standing Medical Board was conducted on 14.05.2024, after a l apse of almost ten months. Though re -examination after such period is permissible, yet the reason recorded by the first medical examiner regarding the presence of injection marks would have lost its significance with the passage of time due to healing. In addition, there was no bruise or impact of any weapon present. Reason and logic constitute the real essence of an opinion. Renowned medical jurist ‘Modi’, ‘Parmar & Parekh’s as well as local medical expert ‘Dr. S. Siddiq Husain ’, in their works on medical jurisprudence and toxicology , have described certain signs of injuries as friendly- handed or self -suffered and have provided indicators to unearth the same. When the opponent was armed with the weapon, in a fully charged state, and allegedly gave a blow with full force, yet the damage was confined to a finger in the shape of fracture, without the slightest harm to the remaining part of the relevant hand, the same constitutes a circumstance creating doubt. Considering the tendency of false implication, the extraordinary relief, in the shape of pre -arrest bail, has been granted and its scope has been extended from time to time by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Guiding principle laid down in the case of “ Khalid Javed Gillan Vs. The State” (PLD 1978 SC 256 ), “ while deciding bail petitions only a tentative assessment of the material and facts available on record is to be Crl. Misc. No. 15322-B of 2026 4
made and deeper appreciation of the same shall be avoided and that any fact which may not be sufficient to cast doubt o f absolute nature on the prosecution case, but equally sufficient to be considered for grant of bail, cannot be lightly ignored”. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as “Muhammad Umar Waq as Barkat Ali Versus The State and Another” (2023 SCMR 330) and “Abdul Rehman Alias Muhammad Zeeshan Versus The State and Others ” (2023 SCMR 884) that while deciding pre -arrest bail application merits of the case can also be touched upon and question of further inquiry can be stre tched at this stage as well. In the circu mstances, apparently petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre -arrest bail. Furthermore, b enefit of doubt is the right of the petitioner/accused even at the stage of pre -arrest bail, as enunciated in the case law reported as “Fahad Hussain and another versus State through Prosecutor General Sindh” (2023 SCMR 364). 6. In a quite identical fact, when the injury was on the little fi nger of left hand of the injured, statedly caused fracture, attracted punishable offence under Section 337 -F(vi) P.P.C., the accused remained failed to get the relief of pre - arrest bail up till this Court, however, relief of pre- arrest bail was granted to him by the Apex Court. Reliance is place upon precedent reported as “Muhammad Akht ar Vs. The State and others ” (2025 SCMR 1631), the relevant ratio is as under: “In such view of the matter, if petitioner is denied the extra ordinary concession of pre -arrest bail, he would nonetheless be entitled to post -arrest bail, considering the nat ure and extent of the Crl. Misc. No. 15322-B of 2026 5
punishment prescribed for the offences with which he stands charged. In the case of “ Khalil Ahmed Soomro Vs. The State ” (PLD 2017 SC 730) , the Supreme Court has observed that where an accused has a strong case for post -arrest bail, he ought not to be incarcerated merely to satisfy the complainant’s desire to have him arrested for a few days, by denying pre - arrest bail”.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, instant petition is allowed and subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court, ad -interim pre -arrest bail already granted is hereby confirmed. The above observations are tentative in nature and would not be taken as conclusive.
(Tariq Mahmood Bajwa) Judge MuzamilMohsin*
Approved for reporting.
Judge