IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.3579 of 2025
[ Muhammad Abeer
son of Muhammad Masood versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
09.02.2026
Syed
Rashid Rizvi, advocate for applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, APG &
Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
Mr. Muhammad Anwar, advocate for
complainant
-------------------------------------------
Applicant
Muhammad Abeer son of Muhammad Masood seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.444/2025,
registered at P.S. Peerabad, Karachi, for offence under Sections 324, 34, PPC, after
rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Karachi East
vide order dated 18.11.2025.
It
is alleged in the FIR that on 25.08.2025 at 1730 hours complainant went to
Qasba No.2 ˝ to meet Yaseen in order to get Rs.30,000/-, where Yaseen asked him
that he will pay the same after informing Mst. Kaneez Rubab alas Rubi, ex-wife
of complainant, thereafter, present applicant came there with his companions
and attacked upon complainant with sharp edged weapon, resultantly complainant
sustained severe injuries at his neck, hands, chest, abdomen and he fell down
and applicant and his companions escaped away. Later on, complainant was
shifted to hospital by his family where he undergone from surgery and after
recovery, he was discharged from the hospital, hence the subject FIR.
Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives
as the complainant was ex-husband of applicant’s mother and was blackmailing
her; that there is delay of 13 days in lodging of FIR, without any proper
explanation; that motive is against Yaseen and applicant has nothing to do with
Yaseen; that it is not clear from the contents of FIR that what kind of sharp
edged weapon was used in the commission of offence; that alleged offence does
not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and the
case of applicant requires further inquiry in terms of Section 429(2), Cr.PC.
On
the other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposed
for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is nominated in FIR with
specific role assigned to him for causing injuries to the complainant on neck,
hands, chest, abdomen and other parts of the body; that ocular version is
corroborated by medical evidence; that final challan has been submitted by the
IO under section 337-D (Jaifah), which is punishable to Arsh, which shall be one-third of the Diyat and may also be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as
ta'zir, which brings the case of
applicant within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G.,
learned counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the applicant is nominated in FIR with
specific role of causing injuries to the complainant at his neck, hands,
abdomen, chest and other parts of his body; that during investigation
prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution in their
statements under section 161, Cr.PC; that ocular version is corroborated with
medical evidence; that offence under Section 337-D, PPC is punishable to Arsh, which shall be one-third of the Diyat and may also be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as
ta'zir, which brings the case of
applicant within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC; that so
far as the contention of learned counsel for applicant that there is delay of
13 days in lodging of FIR without any proper explanation is concerned, in my
humble view, delay in lodging of FIR is for the reason that soonafter the
incident, complainant was admitted in the hospital in a very critical condition
where he was operated and after recovery he lodged the FIR of the incident.
From tentative assessment of the record it appears that sufficient material is
available on record which connects the applicant/accused with the commission of
alleged offence, which comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section
497, Cr.PC and provisions of Section 324, PPC are very much attracted in this
case; that this is a pre-arrest bail and the applicant has to established the
mala fide on the part of the complainant for his false implication in this
instant case, which he has failed to, as observed by the Supreme Court of
Pakistan in the cases 2020 SCMR 249 (Gulshan
Ali Solangi versus the State) and 2021 SCMR 1305 (Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited versus Sarfaraz Khan Jadoon).
Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant by this Court vide
order dated 29.12.2025 is recalled and instant criminal bail application is dismissed. He is directed to surrender
before the trial Court.
The observations made
herein above are tentative in nature and the same would not prejudice the case
of either party at trial.
The instant
criminal bail application is accordingly disposed
of.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS