IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.3329 of 2025
[
Muhammad Ameen vs The State ]
Criminal Bail Application No.3266 of 2025
[
Danial Tahir versus the State ]
Criminal Bail Application No.3267 of 2025
[ Muhammad Saeed & Others versus
The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail applications
-----------------------------------------------------
11.02.2026
Syed
Dilshad Hussain Shah,
advocate for applicant in B.A. 3329/2025
Mr.
Riasat Ali, advocate for applicants in B.As. 3266
& 3267 of 2025
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.
& Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP Syed Anayat Hussain Shah Bukhari, advocate
for complainant
-------------------------------------------
Applicants/accused
Muhammad Ameen, Danial Tahir, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Wasim, Muhammad Shakil, Malik
Tariq Pervaiz and Muhammad Jamil,
in the captioned criminal bail applications, seek pre-arrest bail in FIR
No.350/2025, registered at P.S. Madina Colony, for
offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2013,
after rejection of their bail pleas by learned vide orders dated 24.11.2025.
2. It is
alleged in FIR that in the month of April, 2025 complainant received call from his
sister-in-law Ulfat Jabeen,
who informed her that they are coming to Karachi for engagement of her daughter
Laiba Malik, born on 30.09.2009, she told her that her
daughter is in metric and underage, to which her husband snatched mobile and beaten
her. Her husband forcibly taken Laiba
to the house of his brother, namely, Muhammad Jameel,
resident of Memon Market, Saeedabad.
She filed Family Suit No.381/2025 before learned VIII Family Judge, West
Karachi for maintenance and Haq Mehar,
where her husband filed written statement through his counsel. She came to know
that Nikkah of her daughter Laiba
had been solemnized with Danial, later on she filed
Criminal Petition No.4279/2025, hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants submit that Nikah of Laiba was solemnized with Danial,
recited by Moulvi Muhammad Ameen
in presence of witnesses, who are also accused in this case; that police has
made father of Laiba as accused in the present case,
who was granted bail by learned concerned Magistrate; that alleged offence does not
come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC
and in such cases bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception; that the case
of the present applicants/accused is identical to the case of Muhammad Rais, who has been granted bail by learned concerned
Magistrate, hence he prays for grant of bail to applicants.
4. Learned
A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed for grant of bail
to the applicants/accused on the ground that alleged offence is against the
society; that applicants/accused have violated the law; that law provides
safety to the minor children, therefore, the applicants/accused are not
entitled for grant of bail.
5. Heard learned
counsel for applicants, learned A.P.G., learned counsel for complainant, and
have gone through the material available on record.
6. In the alleged incident, other of
minor Laiba lodged FIR against her husband and other
persons, who are involved in solemnization of marriage of Laiba
with Danial. Punishment provided for the alleged
offence is three years, which does not come within the prohibitory clause of
Section 497, Cr.PC, and in such cases bail is a rule and its refusal
is an exception, as held by apex Court in
the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus State (PLD 2017
SC 733). Case has been challaned and
applicants/accused are no more required for further
investigation. Moreover, learned trial
Court has granted bial to co-accused
Muhammad Rais, father of Laiba
and case of the present applicants/accused is identical footings. It is settled
proposition of law that no purpose would be served out to decline their
pre-arrest bail merely on technicalities and in case of pre-arrest bail, merits
cannot be considered as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafrullah (1986
SCMR 1380) and Muhammad Ijaz versus The State (2022
SCMR 1271). Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants/accused
above named by this Court vide orders dated 03.12.2025 and 26.11.2025 is
confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Applicants/accused are directed to join the trial forthwith.
The observations made
herein above are tentative in nature, 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