IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.3564 of 2025
[ Shan son of Abdul Kareem & Zafar son of Meer versus
The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
orders on M.A. No.2604/2026 (U/A)
-----------------------------------------------------
19.02.2026
Mr.
Zafar Ali Abro, advocate for applicants/accused
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, APG &
Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
SIP/IO
Muhammad Moosa, SIP/SIO Arshad Mahmood of PS Sharafi Goth
-------------------------------------------
Applicants/accused
Shan son of Abdul Kareem and Zafar son of Meer seeks post arrest bail in FIR
No.419/2025, registered at P.S. Site Superhighway for offence under section 394,
397, 353, 324, 34, PPC, after rejection of their bail plea by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Malir, Karachi vide order dated 10.12.2025.
It
is alleged in the FIR that on 22.03.2025 at about 1515 hours complainant Ashiq
Ali and supervisor Attaullah came out of company for purchasing of material, when
arrived at Ayub Shah Bukhari Shrine at about 0200 hours one motorcycle upon
which two dacoits came, armed with weapons and on gunpoint snatched cash Rs.1200/-
copy of CNIC from him whereas Attaullah resisted on which they fired upon him, one
bullet hit him while both of accused fled away on motorcycle. In the meanwhile,
patrolling police came there, they disclosed entire facts to them on which
police along with complainant followed the accused, upon seeing police accused
made straight firing, police also fired in self-defense due to which accused
got injured and on enquiry they disclosed their names as Shan son of Abdul
Kareem and Zafar son of Meer. Upon search from possession of Shan found one 30
bore pistol black color, complainant’s wallet, containing Rs.1200/- and CNIC,
whereas from Zafar who was riding the bike who become seriously injured one 30
bore pistol was recovered. Hence the subject FIR.
Learned
counsel for applicants submits that applicants are innocent and they have been
falsely implicated in this case by the police; that place of incident is a
thickly populated area but no private person has been associated to witness the
alleged incident and recovery; that ingredients of sections 353, 324, 34, PC
are missing in the instant case; that case of the applicants/accused does not
come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC; that the
alleged incident is a police encounter case but none of the police officials
has sustained a single injury or scratch to the vehicle; that no specific role
has been assigned to the applicants/accused; that extra-judicial confession of
applicants before police is inadmissible, hence the case of the
applicants/accused calls for further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
On
the other hand, learned A.P.G., opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicants
were arrested at the spot in police encounter and robbed articles as well as
weapons were recovered from both the applicants/accused in presence of
complainant and no animosity against the complainant has been attributed to
falsely implicate them in the alleged offence, which is heinous in nature.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G.,
learned counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, complainant is eyewitness of the incident;
during robbery companion of complainant, namely, Attaullah resisted and
applicants fired upon him, who received firearm injury. Perusal of record
reveals that soon-after the incident patrolling police arrived there, police
party along with complainant chased the culprits and a police encounter took
place, in result whereof accused persons sustained injuries and were arrested
at spot; from their possession robbed articles as well as arms and ammunitions
were recovered from their possession; FIR has been lodged promptly; no malafide intent or motive is found
on the part of complainant to falsely implicate them in the instant case,
rather he himself as well as his companion Attaullah were victim of the crime.
It needs no reiteration that current offences of the nature have caused panic
among the people, and, it is oftenly seen that the culprits involved in such
offences do not hesitate in taking the lives of innocent persons even on a
slightest resistance by the person being looted by them; that ocular version is corroborated with medical
evidence, which brings the case of the applicant within the ambit of
prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC; there is CRO of the applicants, which
shows that they are involved in two other FIRs; that this is a post arrest bail
and applicants have to alleged any mala fide on the part of the complainant for
their false implication in the instant case. No cogent material was available on record to make present case
one of further inquiry into guilt of accused. In these circumstances, applicants/accused
are not entitled for concession of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is
dismissed. Trial is in progress, therefore, trial Court is directed to conclude
the trial preferably within three months.
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