IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No. S-187 of 2025
Applicants : Akhtar @ Ubaidullah and Amir, called absent,
through Mr. Suhail Ahmed Veesar, Advocate.
Complainant : Nasrullah,
through Mr. Muhammad Shareef Ghanghro, Advocate.
The State : Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for State.
Date of hearing : 14.05.2025
Date of Order : 14.05.2025.
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through captioned bail application, the applicants/accused Akhtar @ Ubaidullah and Amir, both sons of Khadim Hussain in Criminal Bail Application No.S-187/2025, seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.32/2025 for offence punishable under Sections 324,364,377,511,506/2,337-A(i),A(ii),337-U,337-H(ii),109, 148,149 PPC registered at PS Ratodero, district Larkana, after their bail plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero vide order dated 07.04.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both applicants are absent and he has no knowledge of their whereabouts. However, he argued that the First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged with a delay of approximately 18 days. He contended that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He further submitted that both applicants reside in the same locality (Mohalla) and no such incident, as alleged, has occurred. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants.
3. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Shareef Ghanghro, learned counsel for the complainant, filed his Vakalatnama and produced certain photographs reflecting that the victim, namely Ali Hasnain, sustained serious facial injuries. He vehemently opposed the confirmation of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General also opposed the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Upon examination of the record, it transpires that the complainant’s son, Ali Hasnain, aged approximately 15 years and a student of the 9th class, was allegedly subjected to coercion by Police Constable Amanullah Sunani, who attempted to pressure him into an inappropriate relationship/friendship. Upon refusal, on the date of the incident i.e., 06.02.2025 at around 07:00 p.m., when the victim was present along with the complainant’s brother Amanullah in the street, the accused persons, namely Amanullah, Amir, and Eidan, while armed with pistols, intercepted them on a motorcycle and attempted to forcibly abduct the complainant’s son with the intention to commit a sexual offence (zina). However, the complainant party intervened and rescued the victim, who nonetheless sustained serious injuries to his face and various other parts of the body.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant also submitted photographic evidence corroborating the injuries sustained by the victim. The medical evidence supports the ocular account, and the victim himself has affirmed the narrative presented by the complainant.
8. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, it is evident from the contents thereof that the victim was initially taken to a local medical facility and was subsequently referred to Chandka Medical Hospital for improved treatment. The photographs reveal multiple stitches on the victim's face, substantiating the grievous nature of the injuries.
9. At bail stage, the Court is required to conduct only a tentative assessment of the material on record. For the grant of pre-arrest bail, it is a settled principle that malafide intent or ulterior motive must be established by the applicant. In the present case, such elements are lacking. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2019 SCMR 1129, which held:
“Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief within criminal jurisprudence; it is a deviation from the ordinary course of law and is meant to protect innocent persons from arrest on baseless charges involving abuse of legal process. The petitioner must reasonably demonstrate that the intended arrest is motivated by malafide intent. It is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases as it hampers the investigative process.”
10. Sufficient incriminating material is available on record to prima facie connect the applicants with the commission of the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the applicants has failed to establish a case warranting the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed. The interim bail granted to the applicants vide order dated 11.04.2025 is hereby recalled.
11. From the contents of the FIR, it is apparent that the alleged offence is of a heinous nature involving a serving Police Constable, Amanullah Sunani. In view of the dismissal of bail, the SSP Larkana is directed to ensure the immediate arrest of the accused persons and to hand over their custody to the Investigating Officer for further investigation, including recovery of the crime weapons. The SSP Larkana is also directed to initiate departmental proceedings against accused Police Constable Amanullah Sunani for conduct prejudicial to public order and morality. A compliance report shall be submitted on the next date of hearing. Failure to arrest the accused shall require the personal appearance of the SSP along with a detailed explanation.
12. The Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, is also directed to take prompt action for arrest of the accused persons and recovery of the crime weapons.
13. Let this matter be relisted on 19.05.2025 at 09:30 a.m.
14. The office is directed to fix connected bail application No. 192/2025 on 19.05.2025.
JUDGE.