IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.102 of 2026
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
19.02.2026
Mr. Allah Ditta Shakir, advocate for
applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. &
Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
-------------------------------------------
Applicant
Muhammad Adnan son of Farman Ali seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.81/2025,
registered at P.S. Gadap City, Karachi for offence under section 420, 34 and
Section 406, PPC, after dismissal of his bail plea by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, West Karachi vide order dated 09.01.2026.
Learned
counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Muhammad Amir and Jaffar Hussain
were admitted on pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Malir
Karachi vide order dated 02.08.2025 whereby learned Court in para 6 of the
order has observed that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,76,40,000/- in
bank accounts of Jaffar Hussain (Director) and Rana Adnan (CEO) of PPL; bail
has been granted to co-accused Jaffar Hussain and the case of the applicant is
on identical footings.
On the
last date of hearing, Mr. Imdad Ali Malik, advocate, filed Vakalatnama on
behalf of complainant and matter was adjourned for today in his presence but
today complainant and his counsel are called absent, without intimation.
Learned
A.P.G. has opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is CEO who
cheated the complainant and has committed offence of breach of trust.
Heard learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.G. and perused the material available on
record.
It has been observed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II Malir, Karachi while granting bail to co-accused Muhammad Amir and
Jaffar Hussain that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,76,40,000/- in the
bank accounts of Jaffar Hussain (Director) and Rana Adnan (CEO) of PPL. Learned
Sessions Court admitted co-accused Jaffar Hussain on bail and the case of the
present applicant is on identical footings, therefore, rule of consistency is
applied in the case of the present applicant and he is also entitled for grant
of same relief. Moreover, the alleged offence does not fall within the
prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and rule in such cases is bail and its
refusal is an exception. It is settled law that merits of the case can be
considered in pre-arrest bail as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Muhammad Ijaz versus
The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the
applicant/accused above named by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 is
confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
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