Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 332. In this matter between Cr.Bail 332/2026 (S.B.) Nasarullah @ Nasro 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-332 of 2026

Applicant : Nasrullah @ Nasro son of Shafi Muhammad, through Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, Advocate.

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

Complainant : Ghulam Yasin through Mr. Saeed Ahmed B. Bijarani, 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.03 of 2020, registered at Police Station Haji Khan Shar, District Kashmore , at Kandhkot, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 149, P.P.C. Before approaching this Cour t, the applicant had moved an application for post -arrest bail before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed. 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that the applicant, duly armed with a Kalashnikov, along with his co - accused, allegedly p articipated in the occurrence and fired upon the deceased. The allegation against the present applicant is that the fire shot attributed to him hit the deceased on the left thigh and left little finger of the hand. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the deceased was a hardened criminal and was involved in several criminal cases and that, due to such previous enmity, he was done to death, whereas the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that , even according to the FIR, the role attributed to the applicant is confined to firing upon non -

2 {Cr. Bail Appl. No.S-332/2026}

vital parts of the deceased's body, which aspect requires determination at trial. Regarding the applicant's absconsion, learned counsel submitted that the appl icant was arrested in 2026 and that absconsion, by itself, is not a sufficient ground for refusal of bail, particularly when the case otherwise calls for further inquiry. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General, opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant is specifically nominated in the FIR and was armed with a Kalashnikov and actively participated in the occurrence, resulting in the death of the deceased. They therefore submitted that the applicant does not deserve the concession of bail. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that in the police papers relating to the occurrence, including the memo of inspection of the dead body and the relevant police entry dated 30.05.2020, no one had initially disclosed the name of the present applicant as an assailant. Furthermore, there is a delay of one day in registration of the FIR, for which no plausibl e explanation has been furnished. Such unexplained delay, coupled with the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie requires further probe as to whether the nomination of the applicant was the result of subsequent deliberation and consultation. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mazhar Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 318). 7. The record further reflects that the role attributed to the present applicant is of causing firearm injuries to the left little finger of the deceased's hand and to his left thigh. Both injuries were on non-vital parts of the body and, as per the medical evidence available on record, were not the cause of death. Moreover, no specific fatal injury has been attributed to the present applicant. The

3 {Cr. Bail Appl. No.S-332/2026}

role of causing the injuries relevant to the cause of death appears to have been attributed to other co -accused. In such circumstances, the question as to whether the applicant shared the common object or common intention to cause the death of the dec eased, and the precise extent of his liability, requires further examination at trial. The superior Courts have consistently held that where the injury attributed to an accused is on a non -vital part of the body and is not shown to be the cause of death, t he question of his liability may fall within the ambit of further inquiry, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Jamaluddin v. The State (2023 SCMR 1243), Ali Raza v. The State (2022 SCMR 1245), Akhtar Ullah alias Akhtar Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 1287), Aijaz alias Aijaz Ali Jafferi v. The State (2026 MLD 713) and Nishan Ali v. The State (2025 YLR 2812). 8. As regards the applicant's absconsion, it is settled that absconsion, by itself, is not an absolute bar to the grant of bail where, based on the available material, the accused has otherwise made out a case of further inquiry. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR 299). 9. In view of the foregoing tentative assessment of the material available on record, the case of the applicant calls for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, this bail application is allowed. The applicant is admitted to post -arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/ - (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) and a P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 10. 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

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