Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 233. In this matter between Cr.Bail 233/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ S/O MUHAMMAD UMAR (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 233/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 563 PARTIES: MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ S/O MUHAMMAD UMAR (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 16-APR-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Justice Ms. Tasneem Sultana(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Criminal Bail Application No.233 of 2025

Present: Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput Justice Tasneem Sultana

Applicant : Muhammad Shahbaz s/o Muhammad Umar, through Mr. Arshad Hussain Bhutta, Advocate

Respondent : The State, through Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of hearing : 04-03-2025 Date of order : 04-03-2025

O R D E R

TASNEEM SULTANA, J. Through this Crl. B ail Application, applicant/accused, Muhammad Shahbaz s/o Muhammad Umar seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No.239 of 2024, registered at P.S Aziz Bhatti, Karachi under sections 397, 353, 324, 427, 114, 109/34, P.P.C., read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that, on 17.03.2024, at about 1805 hours, complainant GD Imran Khan of Pak -Rangers was on duty along with Naik Akber Hussain and GD Naqeebullah at main Gate F.S Headquarter Rangers , Karachi, where two culprits came on a motorcycle and intercepted one Khalid Mehmood and showing weapons robbed from him Rs: 2000/-, one purse and his motorcycle . Thereafter, they seeing the Rangers officials started firing upon them. In retaliation the complainant also fire d from his official SMG on the culprits but they escaped away from the spot.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR ; that section 324 , P.P.C. does not attract in the

2 circumstances of the case, as no injury has been caused to anyone , that offences under section s 353/427, P.P.C. are bailable, while section 397 , P.P.C., is not applicable on the applicant, as he was not among the unknown accused who allegedly committed the robbery; that the name of applicant has been disclosed b y the co-accused in their statements before police officials during interrogation , which is not admissible in the law; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant and his guilt requires further inquiry entitling him to post-arrest bail.

4. Conversely, learned Additional P.G. Sindh has vehemently oppose d the instant bail application by maintaining that the prosecution has no ill- will or personal grudge against the applicant to implicate him falsely; that sections mentioned in the FIR have been applied properly.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with their assistance.

6. The applicant was arrested on 20.03.2024 and since then he is confined in judicial custody. Police has already submitted the challan, hence, his physical custody is no more required to police for further investigation. There is no previous criminal record of the applicant.

7. As per prosecution case, main accused, namely, Faheem Ahmed and Muhammad Babar, who snatched the belonging of PW Khalid Mehmood , were arrested on 20.03.2024, and police recovered from the ir possession 30 bore pistols and a motorcycle bearing registration No. KPE -3961, stolen from the jurisdiction of PS Shahrah -e-Fasial. D uring interrogation, they disclosed that present applicant was the master mind of offence of present crime. Thus, the a pplicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of

3 disclosure made by the co-accused persons . T here is no direct evidence against the applicant regarding commission of instant offence. Under Article 38 of Qanun -e-Shahadat Order , 1984, no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. So far, the allegation against the applicant of being the master mind of the offence of instant crime is concerned, it shall be determined after recording evidence. Hence, the guilt of the applicant requires further inquiry.

7. For the foregoing facts and reasons , the applicant is entitled for concession of bail. Accordingly, he is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing by him solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Hundred Thousand Rupees Only) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of Trial Court.

8. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits. However, in case the applicant misuses the concession of bail in any manner, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the same after giving him notice, in accordance with law.

9. These are the reasons of our short order dated 04.03.2025.

J U D G E J U D G E Faheem/PA

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