Order Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application
No.3237 of 2025
[Muhammad Hammad Siddiqui v.
The State]
BEFORE:
Mr.
Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Mr. Muhammad Nizar Tanoli, advocate for applicant / accused.
Mr. Muhammad Faisal Agha, advocate for complainant.
Mr. Qamaruddin Nohri, DPG.
Date of hearing & Order 31.12.2025.
***************
ARSHAD
HUSSAIN KHAN, J: Through instant
bail application, the applicant/accused namely, Muhammad Hammad Siddiqui son of
Sharf-e-Alam seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.188/2025 under Section 302, 34
PPC read with Section 7 ATA, 1997, registered at P.S. Pakistan Bazar, Karachi-West.
His earlier Bail Application was
heard and dismissed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.XIII, Karachi vide
order dated 22.11.2025.
2. Briefly,
the prosecution case is that on 18.04.2025, the complainant Muhammad Kalam son
of Abdul Karim lodged the present FIR, stating therein that he is a resident of
House No.1760, Street No.01, Gulshan-e-Zia, Sector 11½, Orangi Town, Karachi,
and is engaged in business. He further stated that on 17.04.2025 at about 1950
hours, he was sitting on a chair in front of his house, while his son Muhammad
Aamir Bhashani @ Aamir Bhutto, Chairman UC-01, Orangi Town, was present in his
camp office located within the house along with his coordinator Muhammad Kalam
son of Muhammad Nizam. At that time, three unknown persons, riding two
unregistered motorcycles, arrived at the spot. Two of them entered the camp
office, while the third remained outside on the motorcycle. Shortly thereafter,
the complainant heard gunfire and raised hue and cry. The two assailants
emerged from the office and fled away. The complainant and others entered the
office and found Muhammad Aamir Bhashani lying injured with firearm wounds and
profuse bleeding. He was immediately shifted on a motorcycle up to Bismillah
Chowk and thereafter, taken to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital in a Chhippa ambulance;
however, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. Subsequently, the complainant
approached Police Station Pakistan Bazar, Karachi West, and lodged the instant
FIR against unknown accused persons for the said occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police with mala fide intentions. He submits that neither the name nor any description (hullia) of the applicant finds mention in the FIR, which was lodged against unknown accused persons. It is further argued that there is an unexplained delay of about five hours in the registration of the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submits that three co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing. Therefore, on the principle of consistency, the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail. He emphasizes that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor a habitual, hardened, or dangerous criminal, and has been implicated merely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, who has been granted bail. Such a statement, according to learned counsel, is inadmissible in evidence under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Lastly, learned counsel prays that the applicant/accused may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in a heinous offence of murder and that sufficient material is available on record which prima facie connects him with the commission of the instant crime; therefore, he is not entitled to any concession of bail. It is further argued that the applicant/accused had conducted reiki of the deceased and was present near the place of occurrence, waiting at the spot prior to the incident. Learned DPG contends that the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. fully implicate the applicant/accused in the offence. It is also submitted that the deceased was a young man who lost his life as a result of political rivalry, and that the role attributed to the present applicant is distinct and more serious than that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. On this ground as well, the applicant does not qualify for the concession of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, the learned counsel for the complainant, as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, and have carefully perused the material available on the record.
6. On a tentative
assessment of the material available on record, it transpires that neither the
name of the applicant nor any description or hullia of the assailants
finds mention in the FIR, which itself was registered after an unexplained
delay of about five hours. Even otherwise, the FIR was lodged against unknown
persons alleged to have arrived on two motorcycles bearing no registration
numbers. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant in the
commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, no incriminating material,
including the crime weapon, has been recovered either from the possession of
the applicant or on his pointation. These circumstances, prima facie, render
the prosecution case doubtful. It is a settled principle of law that any
reasonable doubt arising in a criminal case must be extended in favour of the
accused. It is also well settled that the veracity or otherwise of the
allegations can only be conclusively determined at the conclusion of trial
after recording and appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties.[1]
7. From the record, it transpires that the present applicant/accused has been involved / implicated in the present crime upon the statement of co-accused during interrogation in police custody. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case “The State through Director Anti-Narcotic Force, Karachi v. Syed Abdul Qayum [2001 SCMR 14], while dilating upon the evidentiary value of statement of co-accused made before the police in light of mandates of Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, inter alia, held that statements of co-accused recorded by police during investigation are inadmissible in the evidence and cannot be relied upon. Similar view has been reiterated by the apex Court in case of Raja Muhammad Younas v. The State [2013 SCMR 669], wherein it has been held as under:
“2. ……….After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the
record, we have noted that the only material implicating the petitioner is the
statement of co-accused Amjad Mahmood, Constable. Under Article 38 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, admission of an accused before police cannot be
used as evidence against the co-accused……”
It would not be out of place to observe that the evidence of an accomplice is, by its very nature, regarded as inherently weak and suspicious. Consequently, the extent, quality, and degree of corroboration required to rely upon such evidence must be assessed with great caution, keeping in view the peculiar facts, attending circumstances, and overall tenor of the case.
8. Admittedly, three co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. In our considered view, the case of the present applicant/accused stands on the same footing; therefore, the principle of consistency squarely applies. Furthermore, it is a well-settled principle of law that at the stage of bail, a detailed or deeper appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor desirable, and only a tentative assessment of the material available on record is required.
9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that, prima facie, the applicant/accused has succeeded in bringing his case within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under law and is, therefore, entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the applicant/accused was admitted to bail, subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand only) along with a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, vide our short order dated 31.12.2025.
10. Needless to observe that any observation made herein is tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the merits of the case at trial, nor shall it influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the matter independently in accordance with law. It is, however, clarified that in the event the applicant/accused misuses the concession of bail at any stage of the proceedings, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law, without making any reference to this Court.
Above are the reasons of our short order dated 31.12.2025
JUDGE
JUDGE
Naveed PA