Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 113. In this matter between Cr.Bail 113/2026 (S.B.) Saddam Hussain Magsi and The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: CITATION: PARTIES: ORDER DATE: BENCH: A.F.R: ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA Criminal Bail Application No. S-113 of 2026

Applicant : Sadam Hussain son of Ali Akbar Magsi, through Mr. Farhat Ali Bugti, Advocate.

The State : Through Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhangwar, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Complainant : Wahid Bux son of Raza Muhammad, through Mr. Muhammad Ali A. Peerzada, Advocate

Date of Hearing : 10.08.2026 Date of Order : 10.08.2026.

O R D E R

Ali Haider ‘Ada’ J.- Through this bail application, the applicant seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.181 of 2025, registered at Police Station “A” Section, Shahdadkot, for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Prior to approaching this Court, the applicant had approached the learned trial Court for t he same relief; however, his bail application was declined. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, as reflected from the record, is that on 04.09.2025, the applicant, Sadam Hussain, along with other co-accused, allegedly opened fire upon the injured, namely Khuda Bux, who sustained firearm injuries. Initially, the F.I.R. was registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to his injuries on 19.12.2025, whereafter the case assumed the complexi on of a murder case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is a material inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. He

2 {Cr. Bail Appl. No.S-113/2026}

further submits that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant; rather, the role assig ned to him is general and collective in nature and does not correspond with the seat of injury allegedly attributed to him. It is further contended that some of the co-accused, during the course of investigation, were let off by the police and declared inn ocent on the basis of the same material. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and prays for grant of post-arrest bail. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General oppose the bail application on the ground that the offence alleged against the applicant falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the applicant was arrested along with the crime weapon and is specifically implicated in the commission of the murder by causing an armed injury to the deceased; therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a tentative assessment of the available material, it appears that the injured survived for almost three months after sustaining the alleged injuries and ultimately died on 19.12.2025. However, the medical record, at t his stage, does not conclusively establish that the injury allegedly attributed to the applicant was the direct and proximate cause of death. The question as to whether the alleged injury was sufficient in itself to cause death, or whether the death was di rectly attributable thereto, is a matter requiring proper determination based on evidence to be recorded at the trial. This aspect, therefore, calls for further probe. Moreover, the role attributed to the applicant is general and collective in nature and

3 {Cr. Bail Appl. No.S-113/2026}

does not specifically correspond with the seat of injury allegedly attributed to him. These circumstances, when considered cumulatively, prima facie bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Sahad v. Mst. Afsheen (2026 SCMR 220). 7. As regards the opinion of the Investigating Officer, no doubt such opinion is not binding upon the Court; nevertheless, the record reflects that, on the basis of the same material collected during investigation, some of the co -accused were let off by the Investigating Officer and declared innocent. This circumstance, coupled with the other factors discussed above, provides an additional circumstance requiring further examination of the applicant’s precise role and liability. Consequently, the case of the applicant also falls within the scope of further inquiry contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Abdul Rehman v. The State (2023 SCMR 2081). 8. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the instant bail a pplication is allowed. The applicant, Sada m Hussain, is admitted to post -arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/ - (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned tria l Court. Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice either party at the trial, where the learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence brought on record.

J U D G E

S.Ashfaq/-

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant