IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.473 of 2026
[ Rohit Kumar & Naresh Kumar versus The
State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
26.02.2026
Mr. Muhammad
Saleh Mallah, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr.
Tahir Hussain Mangi, A.P.G. along with P.I. Changzaib, P.S. Clifton, Karachi and
ASI/I.O. Abdul Wali P.S. Clifton, Karachi.
-------------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN
ABBASI, J.- Applicants/accused Rohit
Kumar son of Sham Lal and Naresh Kumar son of Ramesh Kumar seek post-arrest
bail in FIR No.44/2026, registered at P.S. Clifton for offence under Sections 3
& 4 PEHO, 1979, after rejection of their bail plea by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-X Karachi South, vide order dated 10.02.2026.
2. Brief
facts of prosecution case are that on 02.02.2026 at 0200 hours, complainant ASI
Faheem Khan of P.S. Clifton Karachi arrested the Applicants along with huge
quantity of wines, bears and other articles, hence he registered the instant FIR
against them for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the PEHO, 1979.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants mainly contended that applicants are innocent and they
have been falsely implicated in this case for mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that alleged offence does not come within the ambit of prohibitory
clause of Section 497, Cr.PC and the case of the applicants/accused requires further
inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC; that there is violation of Section
103 Cr.PC as the Complainant failed to associate any independent person to witness
the arrest and alleged recoveries; he finally prayed for grant of bail.
4. On
the other hand, learned A.P.G. opposed for grant of bail on the ground that
applicants are arrested with huge quantity of wines and bears hence they are
not entitled for bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicants as well as learned A.P.G. and perused the material
available on record.
6. The
alleged offence does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section
497, Cr.PC, and the rule such case is grant of bail and its refusal is an
exception, as held by apex Court in the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus State
(PLD 2017 SC 733). There is violation of Section 103 Cr.PC as Complainant /
I.O. failed to associate any independent witness of arrest and alleged
recoveries. The case has been challaned and the Applicants are no more required
for further investigation. No purpose would be served out to keep them in jail without
any cogent reason. Therefore, the applicants are admitted to post arrest bail,
subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
8.
Instant criminal bail application
is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Shahbaz