IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Crl. Misc. Application No.150 of 2026

[ Junaid Ahmed son of Irfanul Haq Versus The State and Others ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: order with signature(s) of Judge(s)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For orders on M.A. No.2386/2026

2. For orders on office objection a/w reply

3. For orders on M.A. No.2387/2026

4. For hearing of main case

-------------------------------------

Date of hearing : 17.02.2026

Mr. Abrar Hussain, advocate, holds brief for Mr. Muhammad Salman Khan Rind, advocate for applicant

Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

---------------------------------------------

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.- Applicant Junaid Ahmed is complainant in FIR No.480/2025, registered at P.S. Haideri Market, Karachi for offence under Sections 337-A(i), 337A(iii), 34, PPC. He has impugned order dated 29.01.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Karachi Central whereby respondents Sajid Amin, Nabeel Ahmed and Ghulam Murtaza were admitted on pre-arrest bail.

Mr. Abrar Hussain, advocate, brief on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Salman Khan Rind, counsel for applicant, submits that alleged offence is heinous in nature and respondents have been admitted on pre-arrest bail without establishing their case on the point of mala fide; that respondents after obtaining bail have misused concession of bail by extending threats to the complainant and his witnesses, hence pre-arrest bail granted to the above named respondents may be recalled.

Learned counsel for applicant was directed to satisfy the Court in view of the dictum laid down in the cases of Saeedullah and 2 others vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) and Samiullah & Others vs Laiqzada and another (2022 SCMR 1115) whereby Supreme Court of Pakistan has provided guideline for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel for applicant mainly contended that respondents were admitted on pre-arrest bail, without their establishing their cases on the point of mala fide.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

5. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced here under:

“5. Admittedly there is delay of about 13 days in lodgment of FIR. Perusal of contents of FIR, it appears that four accused persons were nominated in the alleged offence of maltreatment by the complainant but their specific roles have not been attributed therein. Apart from this, the applicants/accused have annexed a Photostat copy of Roznamcha Entry No.31 dated 28.1102025 at 2040 hours, showing the complainant reported the incident at the police station without naming any of applicant/accused, the complainant later on nominated accused persons, which was not denied by the complainant during the course of arguments, such facts made the case of applicants/accused for further inquiry. Although the offence under section 337-A(i), PPC is bailable in nature, whereas the offence under section 337-A(iii), PPC is not bailable for which the involvement of applicants/accused with the commission of alleged offence/crime would be threshed out after recording evidence of the parties during trial.”

6. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which has been passed in accordance with law. It is also settle by now that merits of the case can be considered in a pre-arrest bail and no useful purpose would be served if pre-arrest bail is refused on technical grounds otherwise he is entitled for grant of bail has held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 2017 SC 730 and 2021 SCMR 2087. Moreover, rule in cases which does not come within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC is grant of bail and its refusal is an exception as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 2017 SC 733. Counsel has further contended that IO has inserted Section 337L(ii), PPC in the challan and the trial Court has not admitted on bail to the respondents in said Section. Section 337L(ii) is a bailable offence and it is prerogative of the trial Court to decide this issue but not by the High Court in a cancellation of bail. For contention that respondents have misused the concession of bail, there is no record, which reflects that complainant has approached the learned trial Court for cancellation of bail on the point of misuse of concession of bail which is prerogative of trial Court to cancel their bail if they have misused the concession of bail.

7. In view of above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which has been passed in accordance with law, therefore, instant criminal miscellaneous application for cancellation of bail is dismissed in limine.

7. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 17.02.2026.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS