ORDER
SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.463 of 2026
[ Sher Ali son of Behram Khan versus The State ]
DATE
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(S)
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------
12.03.2026
Mr. Abdul
Baqi Lone, advocate for applicant
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.
M/s
Ghulam Rasool Khattak & Hussain-ul-Aziz, advocates a/w
injured and complainant
SIP
Muhmmad Akram, PS CIC Orangi Town Karachi West
------------------------------------------------
Shamsuddin
Abbasi, J.-- Applicant/accused
Sher Ali son of Behram Khan seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.354/2023,
registered at P.S. Saeedabad, Karachi for offence under Sections 324, 337-F(iv),
34, PPC, after dismissal of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,
Karachi West vide order dated 03.02.2026.
2. For
of the prosecution case as depicted in impugned order are as under:
“In
nut shall story of prosecution case is that complainant Momin Khan lodged FIR
stating therein that on 30.06.2023 one unknown person informed him from a Cell
No.03422805795 that his brother, namely, Farooq received firearm injuries near
Aqsa Masjid, National Chowk, Sector 14/A, Saeedabad, Karachi and the injured has
been shifted to hospital through Cheepa Ambulance. Upon such information, he
reached at Civil Hospital where he saw that his injured brother was under
medical treatment and he was not able to record his statement. On enquiry, he
came to know that injured brother, namely, Farooq aged about 28 years along with
his friends Adil and Saddam left for Sea-View on motorcycle and when they
reached near Aqsa Masjid, National Chowk, Sector 14/A, Saeedabad, Karachi at
about 12.15 p.m. Saddam stopped motorcycle got step down his brother whereas
Adil took out pistol and made firing upon the brother of complainant with
intention to commit his Qatl-e-Amd and both the accused persons escaped away. Hence this FIR.”
3. Learned
Advocate for applicant mainly contended that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due mala fide intentions and ulterior motives;
that the applicant; that applicant is neither nominated in the FIR nor named in
161 Cr.PC statements of the witnesses; that there are contradictions between
the statements of PWs; that despite knowing the applicant/accused for last
10/12 years has not been named if the FIR but his name was inserted after his
arrest, after 01 year and 9 months of lodging the FIR, which creates serious
doubt in the prosecution case, benefit of the same has always been extended to
the applicant/accused as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various
pronouncements, as such, the case of the applicant calls for further inquiry in
terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
4. On
the other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant in
person, has opposed for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant/accused and argued
that applicant has actively abetted in the alleged offence and driving the
motorcycle at the time of incident, he stopped the motorcycle and asked the
applicant/accused to come down from motorcycle, facilitated co-accused Adil,
who fired 7 firearm injuries to the injured but fortunately he survived; that
the applicant/accused is a habitual criminal, he is also involved in the many
other criminal cases; that he is involved in a murder case of 2011 and has
remained absconder; been specifically
named in the F.I.R with specific role of hatching conspiracy for causing murder
of injured complainant; ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. It
is further submitted that the element of mala fide which is basic requirement
for grant of bail is missing in this case.
5. I
have carefully heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. The
applicant/accused actively participated in the alleged incident and at the time
of incident he was driving the motorcycle and fully facilitated the main
accused, who caused 7 firearm injuries to the injured but fortunately he
survived. The applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR and he remained
absconder for more than one years and 10 months without any explanation. It is
settled position that absconder would lose some of the normal rights. The
contention of learned counsel for applicant that present applicant is Sher Ali
whereas in the FIR names of the accused are mentioned as Saddam and Adil;
complainant and inured both are present in Court and submit that applicant Sher
Ali and Saddam is the same person and they have recorded their evidence before
learned trial Court and the trial is in progress. No mala fide or ill will has
been established against the complainant and injured for false implication. The
alleged offence is heinous one and comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause
of Section 497, Cr.PC.
7.
Applicant/accused has not been able to make out a case for grant of
extraordinary relief of post arrest bail. Apparently, ocular evidence is
corroborated by the medical evidence. Deeper appreciation of evidence /
material is not permissible at bail stage, at this stage only tentative
assessment of material is to be made. Prima facie, there appear reasonable
grounds for believing that applicant has committed the alleged offence. Therefore,
no case for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant is made out. As such, applicant
is not entitled for grant of post arrest bail. Resultantly, instant bail application
is dismissed. Since the trial is in
progress, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial preferably
within a period of three months, without granting any adjournment to either
party on any flimsy grounds.
8. Needless
to mention that observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature. Trial
Court shall not be influenced while deciding the case on merits.
9. The
instant criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS