Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 880
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Cr.Bail 879/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Poonio Rawro & Another (Applicant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 880. In this matter between Cr.Bail 879/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Poonio Rawro & 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.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Bail 879/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2025 SHC HYD 2700 PARTIES: Poonio Rawro & Another (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 04-SEP-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD
Crl. Bail Application No.S-879 of 2025
Applicants: Poonio Rawro son of Eshwar, 2) Dharshi Rawro son of Moti through Mr. Bashir Ahmed Talpur, Advocate alongwith Applicant.
For the Complainant: Sadhyo son of Walji Rawro through Mr. Muhammad Rafique, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Mallah, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh.
Date of hearing: 04-09-2025
Date of Order: 04-09-2025
O R D E R
Jan Ali Junejo, J. – Through the instant application under Section 498 Cr.P.C., the applicants, namely (i) Poonio Rawro son of Eshwar and (ii) Dharshi Rawro son of Moti, seek pre -arrest bail before this Court. This Court had earlier granted ad -interim bail to both applicants vide order dated 08.08.2025, in Crime No.97 of 2025, registered at Police Station Pangri o, Taluka Tando Bago, District Badin, for offences under Sections 452, 506(2), 504, 114, 34 PPC. Their earlier application was dismissed by the learne d 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, vide order dated 28.07.2025, primarily o n the ground that the applicants were specifically nominated in t he FIR, allegedly participated in house trespass, and were closely linked to the principal accused. The trial Court, while declining bail, observed that the role of instigation and participation prima facie connected them with the commission of the offence.
[2] Criminal B.A. No.S-879 of 2025 2. The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by complainant Sadhyo son of Walji, caste Rawro, is that on 18.07.2025 at about 12:30 p.m., the applicants, along with other accused, allegedly entered the complain ant’s house without permission, abused and threatened him and his family, and assaulted him and his wife. It is specifically alleged that on the instigation of co-accused Dharshi Rawro, a hatchet blow was inflicted upon Mst. Jamna, wife of the complainant, causing injury to her left little finger. The complainant claims that the accused also used fists and kicks, issued further threats of murder, and left the scene while brandishing lathis and hatc hets. Following the incident, the complainant sought medical treatment for his wife, and interim challan was submitted after usual investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated on account of a long -standing property dispute. He submits that the FIR was lodged with an unexplai ned delay of over six hours, which suggests deliberation and consultation. He further argued that the injuries attributed to Mst. Jamna are not specifi cally assigned to the applicants, whose role is limited to general allegatio ns of instigation and abuse. It is further urged that except Sections 452 and 506(2) PPC, the remaining sections are bailable and even these do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits th at the applicants have joined investigation, and their custodial arrest wo uld serve no useful purpose. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed for confirmation of bail. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant, duly supported by the learned Assistant Prosecutor General, opposed confirmation of bail. They contended that the applicants are specifically nominated in the FIR with a clear role of house trespass, threats, and participation in the i ncident. They argued that the medical certificate corroborates the injuries sustained by Mst. Jamna, and that the applicants, being closely related to the principal ac cused, acted in furtherance of common intention; hence they do not dese rve
[3] Criminal B.A. No.S-879 of 2025 extraordinary concession of pre -arrest bail. Lastly, both of them prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistanc e, making only a tentative assessment as permissible at the bail stage. It is an admitted position that the alleged occurrence took place against the backdrop of long-standing enmity and a property dispute, and the FIR was lodged after a delay of approximately six hours, which, although not fatal to the prosecution case, raises questions that merit careful scrutiny, an d in this regard, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Case of Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan v. The State and others (2023 SCMR 884) has held with respect to delay in registration of an FIR that: “The crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of five days for which not even a single word has bee n put forward by the complainant. The delayed registration of FIR prima facie shows deliberations and consultation on the part of the complainant” . In a similar case concerning the delay in registration of the FIR, Shaukat Hussain v. The State through PG Punjab and another (2024 SCMR 929) , the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as follows: “As per contents of FIR, the occurrence in this case took place on 03.05.2008 at 11:30 a.m. and the matter was report ed to the Police on the same day at 3:30 p.m. and as such there is a delay of about fo ur hours in reporting the crime to the Police whereas Police Station was situated at a distance of about 20 kilometers from the place of occurrence. No explanation at a ll was furnished for causing delay in reporting the crime to the Police. The contention that approximately four hours delay in lodging FIR is a normal thing does not appeal to t he mind. Had the matter been reported within reasonable time, the police would have easily reached at the place of occurrence within about an hour. Why the matt er has not been reported immediately by the eye -witnesses is a question which could not be satisfactorily explained by the witnesses during their evidence. In the circu mstances,
[4] Criminal B.A. No.S-879 of 2025 chances of deliberations and consultations before reporting the matter to the Police cannot be ruled out”.
6. It is noteworthy that the specific allegation of causing a hatch et blow is attributed to another co -accused, whereas the allegations against the present applicants are general in nature, including instigation, abuse, and fist/kick blows. At the bail stage, a deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible; however, a tentative assessment indicates that the role of the p resent applicants is secondary and distinguishable from that of the princi pal accused, bringing their case squarely within the scope of further inquiry under S ection 497(2) Cr.P.C. Furthermore, although the offences alleged are non -bailable, they do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P. C., where the settled rule is that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The applicants have already joined the investigation, and there is n o material on record to suggest that they are likely to abscond, misuse the concess ion of bail, or tamper with prosecution evidence. The Honourable Supreme Cou rt, in cases of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) , has consistently held that in cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibito ry clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., grant of bail is the rule, and refusal an exceptio n, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, which are absent in the present matter. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled princip les of law, I am of the considered view that the applicants/accused have succe eded in making out a case for confirmation of pre -arrest bail. Accordingly, the ad - interim pre -arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 08.08.2025 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall not prejudic e the case of either party at the stage of trial. The learned trial Court is di rected to
[5] Criminal B.A. No.S-879 of 2025 proceed with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. These are the detailed reasons for the short order dated 04.09.2025.
JUDGE