Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 225430
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Zahid Hussain vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 225430. In this matter between Zahid Hussain and The State etc., 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: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif DECISION DATE: 25-JUL-2025 CASE NO: Criminal Miscellaneous-1136-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 225430 PARTIES: Zahid Hussain VS The State etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Bail, After Arrest REMARKS: Post Arrest Bail in FIR No. 68/2023 dated 08.02.2023 U/s 302, 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 148, 149 PPC P.S. Kirpa, Islamabad ============================================================ ORDER SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Crl. Misc. No. 1136 of 2025 Zahid Hussain
Vs.
The State, etc. S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 25.07.2025. Mr. Sohail Ikram and Mr. Husnain Sohail, Advocates for the petitioner. Raja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Ms. Balqees Rahat, State Counsel with Naveed Tahir, S.I. and Muhammad Saad, ASI, Police Station, Kirpa, Islamabad. [
MUHAMMAD ASIF J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner (Zahid Hussain) seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 68/2023 dated 08.02.2023 under Section s 302, 324, 337-F(i), 337 -F(ii) 337-F(v), 148 and 149 PPC registered with the police station, Kirpa, Islamabad. 2. According to the allegations set forth in the FIR, on 08.02.2023 at about 2:35 p.m., while the complainant was returning home and had reached near Haroon Clinic, Jhang Syedan, Subhan Plaza, Lehtrar Road, one Saeed Bhatti allegedly confronted him and started an altercation concerning the return of a certain amount. During the course of the said altercation, Saeed Bhatti reportedly contacted his brother, Zahid Bhatti (the present petitioner), and called him to the location and issued life threats to the complainant. Upon arrival of the petitioner at the scene, he opened fire on the complainant, which caused injuries to his person, after Page-2 Crl. Misc. No. 1136 of 2025 Zahid Hussain v. The State
which both the individuals fled from the place of occurrence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that the observation of the learned Trial Court that "one of the co-accused person is fugitive from law and declared proclaimed offender, therefore , there is great apprehension that present petitioner also become absconder and temper evidence" is based on surmises and conjuncture; that the word "Shall" is used in the proviso (3) of section 497(1) Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court to enlarge the perso n on bail after statutory period, prescribed by the law; that the delay in conclusion of the trail is occasioned by the act of prosecution and not by an act or omission of the petitioner or by any other person acting on his behalf; that the petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. 4. The learned State Counsel assisted by counsels for the complainant repelled the above submission and arg ued that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role, sufficient incriminating material is available on record , which prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 5. Arguments heard, record perused. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the incident occurred on 08.02.2023 at about 02:35 p.m., during which Page-3 Crl. Misc. No. 1136 of 2025 Zahid Hussain v. The State
the petitioner allegedly discharged firearm shots at the complainant, resulting in serious injuries. Subsequently, the complainant succumbed to the said injuries and expired. The petitioner filed pre -arrest bail, which was dismissed o n the basis of non -appearance before the Court, whereupon the petitioner was apprehended on 28.02.2023. , subsequently the petitioner f iled post-arrest bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad, vide order dated 02.07.2024. 7. The offences for which the petitioner stands charged are of a grave and serious nature. Section 302 PPC pertains to the offence of Qatl-e-Amd, which is punishable either with the death penalty, life imprisonment, or payment of diyat as provided under the l aw. Section 324 PPC deals with the offence of attempted murder, carrying a maximum punishment of ten years of rigorous imp risonment or with fine, or both. Additionally, Section 337-F(ii) PPC pertains to the infliction of Shajjah-i-Mudihah, which is punisha ble with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years as well as arsh. The cumulative effect of these provisions brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Under t he settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, i.e., where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment, the general rule is the refusal of bail, and the grant of bail becomes an exception. The logic behind this principle is rooted in the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the punishment prescribed by law, and the potential risk of abscondence, tampering with prosecution evidence, or causing threat or harm to the complainant or witnesses. Page-4 Crl. Misc. No. 1136 of 2025 Zahid Hussain v. The State
8. The offence s supra are non-bailable, and it is a well-settled principle of law, reiterated by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, that in cases involving non-bailable offences, the grant of bail is not a matter of right but a concession to be extended under judicial discretion, subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. Reference may well be made to the case of Shameel Ahmed Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 174) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:- “4…….Bail in a case not falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. --- Principles--- Grant of bail in cases not falling within the domain of prohibition clause of proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C. is not a rule of universal application---Each case has to be seen through its own facts and circumstances---Grant of bail, no doubt, is a discretion granted to a Court, but its exercise cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse.”
9. In another case of Mehmood Siddique Vs. Imtiaz Begum and two others (2002 SCMR 442) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that:- “4……..None can claim that bail as of right i n nonbailable offences even though the same do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.” 10. In the present case, it is evident that the FIR was promptly lodged, assigning a specific and direct role to the petitioner in the commission of the offence, particularly attributing the act of firing upon the deceased to him. Furthermore, the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. consistently and clearly implicate the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. In view of the available material on record, no grounds for further inquiry, as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., are made out. Furthermore, the petitioner is involved in multiple Page-5 Crl. Misc. No. 1136 of 2025 Zahid Hussain v. The State
cases of similar nature, it seems that he is a habitual offender. 11. In light of the allegations, the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the severity of the punishment prescribed u nder the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, and the petitioner’s alleged involvement in other cases of a similar nature, the alleged offences directly fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner, prima facie, does not qualify for the grant of bail. 12. In view of the above tentative assessment, the instant post-arrest bail petition is dismissed. 13. The observation s recorded hereinabove are tentative, in nature and shall have no impact upon merits of the case.
(MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE **//Kamran//**