IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No.240 of 2026
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
04.03.2026
Mr.
Harchand Rai, advocate for
applicant
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.
& Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
Mr.
Samiullah, advocate a/w complainant
SIP/IO
Chakar Khan of PS Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi
-------------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Malik Sameer Awan son of Shoukat
Waris seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.645/2025,
registered at P.S. Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi for offence under section 377,
511, PPC after dismissal of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII/Special
GBV Court, Karachi East vide order dated 10.01.2026.
2. Facts
involved in the instant case are that applicant is arraigned as accused on the
allegation that he tried twice to commit sodomy with son of complainant, namely,
Muhammad Hareb, aged about 6/7 years, hence the FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute between mother of
applicant and complainant; that there is no medical certificate to substantiate
the allegation of complainant; that there is delay of four hours in lodging of
FIR, without plausible explanation; that affidavit of father of victim has been
filed in which he denied about any incident occurred in his house; that interim
pre-arrest bail may be confirmed on the basis of available record, which makes
out the case of applicant for further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. He relied upon the orders passed by this Court in
Criminal Bail Applications 1739/2023, 812/2025 and 164 of 2024.
4. Learned
A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposed for grant of bail
on the ground that applicant is single accused nominated in the FIR for trying
to commit sodomy with a minor boy of 6/7 years age; that complainant and PW Afshan Shahid have fully supported
the case of prosecution in their 161, Cr.PC
statements as well as by victim in his statement under section 164, Cr.PC recorded by learned concerned Magistrate wherein he has
fully implicated the applicant for commission of offence, which is heinous one
and against the society; that applicant has second time attempted to commit
same offence with the minor boy, aged about 6/7 years; that alleged offence is
against the society and it comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of
section 497, Cr.PC, hence he is not entitled for
grant of extra-ordinary relief by way of pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused
the material available on record.
6. Applicant
is single accused nominated in the FIR. It is the case of the prosecution that
he attempted second time to commit sodomy with a minor boy of 6/7 years age.
During investigation, PW Afshan Shahid,
daughter of complainant and victim Muhammad Hareb
have fully supported the case of prosecution; that concerned Magistrate has recorded
statement of victim boy under section 164, Cr.PC
wherein he has fully implicated the applicant for commission of offence, which
comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC. Contention raised by learned counsel for the
applicant that affidavit has been sworn by father of victim boy carries no
weight for the reason that he is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident,
who is real paternal uncle of applicant and it could not be ruled out that he
is trying to save his nephew. Even otherwise, instant application is for
pre-arrest bail and the apex Court has settled certain principles for grant of
pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide or false implication. I do not see
any mala fide on the part of the complainant or victim boy to falsely implicate
him in the instant case as held by apex Court in the cases of Gulshan Ali Solangi versus the
State (2020 SCMR 249) and Abdul Aziz Memon versus the
State (2020 SCMR 313). No case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out, therefore, instant criminal bail application is dismissed.
7. The
observations made herein above are tentative in nature and 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
Gulsher/PS