ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No.49 of 2026

DATE

ORDER WITH SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs

 

For hearing of bail application

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

27.02.2026

            Mr. Gulsher Mangnejo, advocate for applicant

            Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. & Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP

            IO/PI Ghous Bux and PI Noor Ahmed of PS Bin Qasim

            Mr. Abdul Jalil, advocate files power on behalf of complainant

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

            Applicant Dost Muhammad Sehto son of Muhammad Ismail seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.393/2025, registered at P.S. Bin Qasim for offence under section 396, 397, 398, 34 PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Malir, Karachi vide order dated 26.12.2025.

            Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.09.2025 in night hours some accused persons, armed with weapons, trespassed into the house of the complainant, confined inmates of the house in one room, committed dacoity and taken away gold, cash amount, mobile phones, battery, CCTV and DVR system, internet devices and tortured all the inmates of the house and father of complainant, leading to his death. They demanded original file of complainant’s house and Plot No.A-91, Falaknaz and taken away some documents from the file. While leaving, they disclosed that everything happened is at the instance of Haji and Molvi, hence the subject FIR.

            Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives; that there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR, without plausible explanation; that applicant is not nominated in the FIR; that co-accused Ibadullah, Shoaib and Ishq Ali were admitted to post-arrest/pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court; that there is identification parade against the applicant after a delay of 10 days of his arrest, which makes out the case of applicant for further inquiry.

            Mr. Abdul Jalil, advocate, files Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. Learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposed for grant of bail on the ground that the alleged offence is heinous one in which one innocent person Rao Muhammad Javed, father of the complainant, has lost his life at the hands of applicant/accused; that the complainant party has identified the applicant/accused during the process of identification parade; that there is CRO of the applicant and he is involved in 6 other criminal cases of like nature, hence he is not entitled for grant of post arrest bail.  

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G., learned counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.

 

No doubt, applicant is not nominated in the FIR and the FIR has been lodged by complainant against unknown persons, however, during investigation applicant was arrested and identified by the complainant through identification parade. In the present case, father of the complainant lost his life due to torture committed by accused party. They robbed 25/30 tola gold ornaments, cash, mobile phones and other valuable articles. The alleged offence carries capital punishment and comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC. Learned counsel mainly contended that co-accused Ibadullah, Shoaib and Ishq Ali were admitted to post-arrest/pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court. At this stage, counsel for complainant submits that complainant intends to file application for cancellation of bail of co-accused Ibadullah, Shoaib and Ishq Ali. He may do so, if he is so advised. Therefore, I refrain myself to give any findings, which may prejudice the case of either party. The alleged offence is heinous one and carries capital punishment. No case for grant of post arrest bail is made out. Therefore, instant criminal bail application is dismissed.

 

The above observations 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