Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 1026. In this matter between Cr.Bail 1026/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Muhammad Nasir & Another (Applicant) and the Respondent, 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: Cr.Bail 1026/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2026 SHC HYD 687 PARTIES: Muhammad Nasir & Another (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 11-MAR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERBABD

Criminal Bail Application No. S-1026 of 2025 Criminal Bail Application No. S-1146 of 2025 Criminal Bail Application No. S-28 of 2026

Applicants: i) Muhammad Nasir @ Nasir and Bilal present on interim pre -arrest bail in Criminal Bail Application No.S -1026 of 2025 through Mr. Farhad Ali Abro, Advocate along -with Safdar Ali Abro.

ii) Khurram in Criminal Bail Application No.S - 28 of 2026 through Mr. Farhad Ali Abro, Advocate along-with Safdar Ali Abro.

iii) Muhammad Faizan present on interim pre - arrest bail in Criminal Bail Application No.S - 1146 of 2025.

Complainant: Naushad Ali Qureshi through Mr. Mumtaz Sachal Awan, Advocate along -with witnesses Muhammad Shahzad and Muhammad Bilal.

Respondent: The State through Mr. Khalid Hussain Lakho, D.P.G.

Date of hearing: 11.03.2026 Date of decision: 11.03.2026 ORDER

RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J: - Through this common/joint order, I propose to adjudicate upon three above -captioned criminal bail applications filed on behalf of four applicants/acc used, namely Muhammad Nasir @ Nasir, Bilal, Muhammad Faizan, and Khurram. arising out of the same Crime No. 136/2025 registe red under Sections 324, 114, 34 PPC at P.S. Pinyari, Hy derabad. Since all the applicants are alleged to be involved in th e same occurrence, the accusations stem from a single set of facts, an d common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, all these bail applications are being disposed of together through this consolidated order to avoid conflicting findings and for the sake of judicial convenience.

2 2. The brief background of the prosecution case, as s et out in the FIR, is that the complainant along with his relatives was residing within the jurisdiction of P.S. Pinyari, Hyderabad, and a matrimonial dispute had arisen between one Umair (cousin of the complainant) and his wife Mst. Sana, which allegedl y led to exchange of hot words and quarrel on 04.08.202 5 at about 09:00 p.m. It is alleged that upon being informed, the br other of Mst. Sana, namely Bilal, came to the house and allegedly subjected Umair to physical assault, which was later pacified by the intervention of locality people. Thereafter, as per the complainant, at about 11:30 p.m. on the same night, the nominate d accused persons, namely Khurram, Nasir, Bilal all sons of Noor Muhammad @ Zahoor Qureshi while Faizan, along with Mst. Sana , allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, duly armed with deadly weapons including knives, cutter/bugda and chappar, and trespassed into the house of Umair. It is further alleged that on t he instigation of Mst. Sana, the accused persons made a murderous ass ault upon the inmates of the house; Khurram allegedly inflicted a blow causing injuries on the abdomen and hand, Nasir allegedly c aused knife injury to Shahzad, Bilal allegedly inflicted head injury upon Umair, while present applicant Faizan is alleged to have a ttacked Azhar with a knife. Consequently, multiple persons sustai ned injuries of varying nature, who were initially shifted to Civil Hospital Hyderabad for treatment, whereas injured Shahzad wa s referred to Liaquat National Hospital Karachi due to the seriousness of his injuries. Subsequently, the complainant approached the police station and lodged the instant FIR, whereafter the investigation commenced and the police allegedly initiated raids for arrest of the nominated accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants, while opening his arguments, vehemently contended that the applicants are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives and malafide on the part of the complainant party, as no such occurrence, in the manner alleged , has ever taken place. He submitted that admittedly the dispute bet ween the parties emanates from a matrimonial discord between co -accused

3 Mst. Sana and her husband Umair, which has delibera tely been given a criminal colour in order to harass, pressur ise and humiliate the entire family of the applicants and to coerce t hem into submission and compromise. It was further argued that, in fact, Mst. Sana was subjected to maltreatment and physica l abuse by her husband, and when her brothers, including the p resent applicants, intervened to resolve the matter and re store her matrimonial life, they themselves were subjected to violence by the complainant party, whereafter the entire episode wa s twisted and a false and concocted FIR was lodged against them. Le arned counsel next contended that the conduct of the police furth er strengthens the defence version, as one of the co-accused was a llegedly picked up prior to registration of FIR, illegally detained and not produced before the competent court within the stipulated ti me, thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful and tainted with mala fide. He further argued that the FIR is admittedly delayed by two days without any plausible explanation, which prima facie suggests deliberation, consultation and fabrication, thus diminishing its evidentiary value at the bail stage. It was also contended that similarly placed co -accused, namely Mst. Sana, has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, therefore, on the well - established principle of consistency, the present applicants are also entitled to the same concession. Learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution are closely related and interested, hence their testimony is highly dou btful and requires deeper scrutiny during trial, bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry. He added that the alleged offences, in the facts and circumstances, do not strictly fall withi n the prohibitory clause, and even otherwise the role attributed to t he applicants is general and exaggerated. Lastly, he argued that the applicants are law-abiding citizens, having no previous criminal reco rd, are neither flight risks nor likely to tamper with prosecution evidence, and are ready to furnish solvent surety to the sati sfaction of this Court; therefore, they are entitled to the concessi on of pre-arrest bail in the interest of justice.

4 4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with learned counsel for the complainant strongly o pposed the grant of pre-arrest & post arrest bail to the appli cants and contended that the applicants are specifically nominated in the FIR with distinct and active roles attributed to each o f them, supported by ocular account and medical evidence, which prima facie connects them with the commission of the offence. It was arg ued that the occurrence is not a mere matrimonial dispute, as al leged by the defence, rather it is a brutal and premeditated attack wherein the applicants, duly armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the complainant party with the common object to commit murder, resulting in multiple injuries to the victims, some of whom sustained ser ious wounds. Learned counsel further submitted that the nature o f injuries, the weapons used and the manner of assault clearly attr act the provisions of Section 324 PPC, which squarely falls within the prohibitory clause, thus disentitling the applicants from the concession of bail. It was further contended that t he delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained, as the immediate priority of the complainant party was to shift the injured persons to hospital and arrange for their medical treatment, including referral of one injured to Karachi, therefore, such delay is neither deliberate nor fatal to the prosecution case. The learned DPG also argued that the plea of false implication and furth er inquiry raised by the applicants are matters of deeper appreciatio n of evidence, which can only be determined at trial and not at th e bail stage. It was further asserted that the principle of consiste ncy is not attracted in the present case as the role of the pr esent applicants is distinguishable and graver in nature as compared to those co - accused who have been granted bail. Lastly, it was contended that the applicants are seeking the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, which is to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, whereas in the present case no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police has been esta blished; therefore, the applicants do not deserve any lenien cy and their applications are liable to be dismissed.

5 5. Heard and record perused. After giving anxious consideration to the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and tentative assessment of the material available on record, including FIR, medical certificates, statements of witnesses and role attributed to each accused, t his Court proceeds to record its detailed reasons for the short order dated 11.03.2026, whereby bail of some applicants was declined while others were extended the concession of pre -arrest bail. 6. At the very outset, it is an admitted position tha t all the accused persons have been nominated with specif ic and distinct roles in the FIR. It is equally settled that in matters of bail, particularly pre -arrest bail, the Court is required to examine the individual role, nature of injury, severity of off ence and its placement within or outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., rather than granting or refusing bail on a blanket basis. 7. So far as applicant Khurram is concerned, the reco rd reflects that he is attributed with a specific role of inflicting injuries upon Bilal s/o Muhammad Asghar Qureshi, wh ich have been medically opined to fall within the ambit of S ections 337-D, 337-A(iv) and 337-F(i) PPC. The nature of injury under Section 337-D PPC pertains to “shajjah-i-munaqqilah ”, which involves displacement of bone, and is punishable with imprisonment extending up to ten years, thereby attracting seriousness and severity. Likewise, the injuries under Section 337 -F(i) PPC relate to grievous hurt not covered by other specific clau ses and carry substantial punishment. The cumulative effect of these injuries, coupled with the use of a deadly weapon and the man ner of assault, prima facie demonstrates that the role of Khurram i s direct, active and grievous in nature, attracting the rigours of t he prohibitory clause. 8. Furthermore, the injured witness has specifically nominated Khurram and the medical evidence lends support to the ocular account. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the dictum laid down in 2020 SCMR 937 (Bilal Khan vs. The State), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that where an accused is nominated with a specific role of causing injury supported by

6 medical evidence, sufficient grounds exist to conne ct him with the commission of offence and bail is to be refused. 9. Thus, in view of the specific role, corroborative medical evidence and gravity of injuries, no case for further inquiry is made out in favour of applicant/accused Khurram. Consequently, his bail was declined vide short order dated 11.03.2026. 10. Similarly, applicant Muhammad Nasir @ Nasir is attributed with causing injuries to Shahzad, which have been described as 337-D, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) and three injuries under 337- (i) PPC. The multiplicity of injuries, including gr ievous hurt falling under Section 337-D PPC, clearly demonstrates repet ition of assault and intensity of violence. The presence of multiple injuries on a single victim further aggravates the role of N asir, reflecting his active participation and intention. 11. Additionally, the record shows that another injured namely Azhar has also sustained injury under Sectio n 337-F(i) PPC, which further indicates that the accused party ac ted with concert and common intention. The magnitude and mul tiplicity of injuries bring the case within the prohibitory clau se and do not fall within the ambit of further inquiry. 12. In this regard, guidance can also be sought from 2020 SCMR 1278 (Habib Ullah Jan vs. The State), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court declined bail in a case of multiple injuries supported by medical evidence, holding tha t where the magnitude of violence is evident and supported by record, no case for further probe is made out. 13. Therefore, considering the grievous nature of inju ries, multiplicity of blows and corroboration through medical evidence, the case of applicant/accused Nasir squarely falls within the prohibitory clause, hence his bail was declined vide short order dated 11.03.2026 . 14. Conversely, the case of applicant Bilal stands on a distinguishable footing. Although he is alleged to have caused injury to Umair, it has come on record that Umair d id not appear before the Medico Legal Officer (MLO), and thus no medical certificate is available to substantiate the nature or severity of the

7 alleged injury. In absence of medical corroboration , the allegation remains tentative and unsubstantiated at this stage , thereby creating a dent in the prosecution case qua this ac cused. 15. It is a settled principle of law that where ocular account is not supported by medical evidence , the case of the accused may fall within the ambit of further inquir y. Moreover, the absence of medical examination of the injured depri ves the Court of an objective assessment of injury, thus extending b enefit of doubt at the bail stage. 16. Accordingly, the case of applicant/accused Bilal falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 4 97(2) Cr.P.C., and he has rightly been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, which was confirmed on the same terms and conditions vide short order dated 11.03.2026. 17. Likewise, applicant Muhammad Faizan is attributed with causing injury to Azhar under Section 337-F(i) PPC, which, though punishable, does not by itself demonstrate t he same level of gravity or multiplicity as seen in the case of co -accused Khurram and Nasir. The injury attributed to Faizan appears to be single and not of such exceptional severity as to irresistibly bring his case within the prohibitory clause, particularly when as sessed tentatively at bail stage. 18. Furthermore, no additional aggravating circumstanc e such as repetition of blows or life-threatening inj ury has been attributed to him. Thus, his case, when viewed in t otality, appears to fall within the ambit of further inquiry, entitl ing him to the concession of bail. Accordingly, pre-arrest bail ea rlier granted to Faizan has been confirmed on the same terms and con ditions. 19. It is also pertinent to observe that at bail stage , the Court is not required to conduct a deeper appreciat ion of evidence but only to undertake a tentative assessment to det ermine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accuse d is guilty of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause or whether the case calls for further inquiry, as consistently held by the Honourable Supreme Court (2020 SCMR 937).

8 20. In view of the above discussion, the cases of Khurr am and Nasir are distinguishable from those of Bilal a nd Muhammad Faizan on account of nature of injuries, their seve rity, multiplicity and medical corroboration, therefore, they have rig htly been treated differently in accordance with settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, as such, the pre-arrest bail of applicants/accused Bilal and Muhammad Faizan was confirmed on the same terms and conditions vide short order dated 11.03.2026. 21. These are the reasons for my short order dated 11.03.2026. 22. It is clarified that the observations made herein a re purely tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.

JUDGE

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