IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.3081 of 2025
[
Asghar Khan son of Wali-ur-Rehman versus the State ]
Criminal Bail Application No.2970 of 2025
[ Gohar Ali, Javed-ur-Rehman & Nadeem Wali versus the State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail applications
-----------------------------------------------------
04.02.2026
Mr. Shah Imroz
Khan, advocate for applicants/accused
Ms. Rukhsana
Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
Mr. Mehnaz
Jan Afridi, advocate a/w complainant
-------------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, J.- Applicants/accused Asghar
Khan son of Wali-ur-Rehman, Gohar
Ali son of Sher Ali, Javed-ur-Rehman
son of Habib-ur-Rehman and Nadeem
Wali son of Wali-ur-Rehman seek
pre-arrest bail in FIR No.600/2025, registered at P.S. SITE-A, Karachi for
offence under Sections 452, 324, 34, PPC read with Sections ¾ of the Lawyers
Protection Welfare Act, 2023.
2. Brief
facts of prosecution case are that, complainant, who is a practicing advocate,
lodged aforesaid FIR against the above named applicants, alleging therein that
they are giving shelter to murderer of Abbas Afridi
since 1 ½ years at their house, he restrained them from doing so to which they
became annoyed and on 26.10.2025 at 06:00 pm, the applicants, duly armed,
forcibly entered in his house and fired upon the complainant but he ran away,
hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants mainly contended that applicants are innocent and they
have been falsely implicated in this case for mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that applicant Asghar Khan is not nominated
in the FIR; that complainant of this case is a practicing advocate and there is
family dispute between the parties; that applicant Gohar
Ali is real brother of complainant; that this is a case of ineffective firing;
that applicants party was allegedly armed with deadly weapons but surprisingly
they did not cause any injury or scratch
to the complainant when he was at their mercy; that they have directly
approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail, for the reason that they
feel apprehension of humiliation and disgrace at the hands of the complainant
if they approach to the concerned Court at City Courts, Karachi for their
pre-arrest bail and this Court has concurrent jurisdiction in exceptional cases.
4. Complainant
Bakhtiar Ali, who is a practicing advocate, present
along with his counsel, submits that applicants are nominated in FIR, except
applicant Asghar Ali; he admits that applicant Gohar Ali is his real brother; that they have fired at
complainant therefore Section 324, PPC is attracted in the present case, which
brings the case of applicants within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section
497, Cr.PC, hence they are not entitled for bail.
5. Learned
ADPP has recorded her objection for grant of bail to the applicants.
6. Heard
learned counsel for applicants, learned ADPP as well as complainant and his
counsel, and perused the material available on record.
7. Admittedly,
applicant Gohar Ali is real brother of complainant
and there is family dispute between them; that this is a case of ineffective
firing wherein none has received any injury, which makes out a case of further
inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. Reliance
is placed on the case of Muhammad Ameen versus the
State (2022 SCMR 1444). Applicability of Section 324, PPC is yet to be
determined at trial. Reliance is placed on the case of Jamaluddin
versus the State (2023 SCMR 1243). Contention raised by learned counsel for the
complainant party that applicants have directly approached this Court, it is
settled proposition of law that this Court has concurrent jurisdiction and this
Court can entertain pre-arrest bail directly in exceptional cases. Reliance is
placed on 2004 SCMR 1167 (Rais
Wazir Ahmad v. The State), 1991 SCMR 322 (The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan).
Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court to the applicants vide
Orders dated 07.11.2025 and 29.10.2025, is confirmed on the same terms and
conditions.
8. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
9.
Instant criminal bail application
is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gusher/PS