IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.2536 of 2025
[ Muhammad Attiq Alam
versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
27.04.2026
Mr. Muhammad Hanif
Sama, advocate for applicant
Ms. Rukhsana
Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
Mr. Nasir Mehmood, advocate for complainant
DSP Chaudhry
Ghulam Safdar of CTD Sindh
Karachi
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Muhammad
Attiq Alam son of Idrees Ahmed has moved second bail application in FIR
No.201/2023, registered at P.S. Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi, for offence under Sections 302, 34, PPC,
after dismissal of his first bail application by this Court vide order dated
03.03.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 21.03.2023, while returning after offering Fajar prayer, complainant received information that two
unknown motorcyclists fired upon his brother Abdul Qayyum
in front of his House C-1, Block-9, Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi, he rushed to the place of incident where he
saw that his brother Abdul Qayyum was lying in
street, blood was oozing from his head and he passed away. Thereafter, he
lodged FIR against unknown persons for assassination of his brother for unknown
reasons. During investigation co-accused Ali Akbr and
Tanveer were arrested in cases of recovery of weapons
and during investigation they admit their involvement in the present case and
they further disclosed that applicant is serving as Inspector in Sindh Police
and he is a master mind of alleged incident and he hired them for committing
murder of deceased. As for motive is concerned, applicant and deceased were
residing in a same muhalla and deceased had purchased
a house against the wishes of applicant. Applicant is Inspector in Sindh Police
and he remained absconder for more than one and half years.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant has mainly relied upon case of Federation of Pakistan v/s Gul
Hasan khan and others reported in PLD 1989 Supreme
Court 633 whereby Honorable Shariat Bench held that role of abatement in a murder case
under Section 109, PPC is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, which makes
out the case of applicant for grant of bail.
4. On the
other hand, learned ADPP appearing for State, assisted by learned counsel for
complainant and the IO, submits that this Court has already dismissed the first
bail application of the applicant/accused on merits and instant criminal bail
application has been moved by the applicant/accused without any fresh grounds;
that applicant/accused caused delay in conclusion of trial; that all the
prosecution cases have been examined by the learned trial Court and there
remains examination of only two IOs; that the trial is in progress and the case
is at the verge of conclusion.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, learned ADPP as well as counsel for complainant,
IO and perused the material available on record.
6.
This Court has
already dismissed first bail application of the applicant/accused on merits
vide order dated 03.03.2025 and instant criminal bail application has been
moved by the applicant/accused without any fresh ground, therefore there is no
need to repeat the same findings. Learned council for applicant mainly
contended that in a case of Federation of Pakistan v/s Gul
Hassan Khan and others reported in PLD 1989 SC 633, Hon’ble
Shariat Bench has held that role of
conspirator/abettor under section 109, PPC is repugnant to the injunction of
Islam. Findings on the applicability of section 109 PPC at bail stage would
amount to be a deeper appreciation and only tentative assessment is required at
bail stage. The case law cited by the learned counsel for applicant pertains to
final disposal of the case and not possible to discuss this issue at bail
stage. Sufficient material is available on the record to connect him in the
alleged offence which carries capital punishment. Learned Council for
Complainant informed that charge has been informed that trial is in progress
and complainant and two PWs have been examined and on 09.04.2026 four PWs were
in attendance but case could not proceed due to absence of defence
council and defence councils are causing delay. In a
such situation Honorable Supreme Court has held that when trial is in progress
neither bail can be granted nor canceled reported in 2011 SCMR 1332:
The courts should
not grant or cancel bail when the trial is in progress and proper course for
the courts in such a situation would be to direct the learned trial Court to
conclude the trial of the case within a specified period.
7.
Similarly, in the
case of Farooq Mengal VS
The State (2007 SCMR 404) it has been held that:
“The courts should not grant or
cancel bail when the trial is in progress and proper course for the Courts in
such a situation would be to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the
trial of the case within a specified period.”
8.
No case for grant of bail is made out, therefore, instant criminal bail application is dismissed. However, learned trail Court
is directed to proceed with the matter on weekly basis and conclude the same
within three months under intimation to this Court through learned MIT-I.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in
nature, the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of
the applicant/accused on merits.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS