Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 557
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Cr.Bail 557/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Fayyaz S/O Ali Hassan (Applicant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 557. In this matter between Cr.Bail 557/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Fayyaz S/O Ali Hassan (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 557/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2025 SHC HYD 2547 PARTIES: Fayyaz S/O Ali Hassan (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 26-AUG-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-557 of 2025
Applicant: Fayyaz son of Ali Hassan Otho through Mr. Ashique Hussain D. Solangi, advocate.
For the State: Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant P.G.
Date of hearing: 26-08-2025
Date of Order: 26-08-2025 O R D E R
Jan Ali Junejo, J. – The applicant/accused, namely Fayyaz son of Ali Hassan Otho, has applied for post -arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C in Crime No.04 of 2025 registered at Police Station Mahi Otho @ Karampur for the offence under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. His earli er bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan, was declined vide order dated 09.05.2025. 2. The prosecution case, as set forth in the FIR lodged by complainant SIP Bashir Ahmed Solangi, SHO Police Station Mahi Otho, is that on 25. 03.2025 during interrogation of the present applicant Fayyaz son of Ali Hassan Otho, who was already in custody in connection with Crime No.03/2025 of th e same Police Station, the applicant allegedly confessed and volunte ered to produce the weapon used in the said occurrence. It is alleged that in pursuance of such disclosure, the police party accompanied by mashirs procee ded towards the northern side of Karampur near Sim Nala, where the applicant pointed out and produced one “big mouser” wrapped in a plastic shoppe r. The weapon was sealed on the spot in the presence of mashirs and, on such recovery, the present FIR being Crime No.04/2025 was registered against the applicant under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.
[2] Criminal B.A. No.S-557 of 2025
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, which is n othing but a continuation of the earlier case registered against him. He argued that t he alleged recovery has been foisted upon the applicant at a time when he was already in police custody, thus rendering such recovery doubtful. I t was further contended that all the witnesses cited are police off icials except the mashirs, who are stock witnesses of the police and not independe nt persons of the locality, hence the mandatory provision of Section 103 Cr.P.C h as not been complied with. Counsel emphasized that nothing incriminatin g was recovered from the direct and exclusive possession of the applicant, rather the recovery has been shown from an open place which, at best, creates a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. It was further urged that th e applicant is in custody since long, is no more required for inves tigation, and the trial is likely to take sufficient time. He undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail, contending that in the given circumstances, the case against the applicant calls for extending the benefit of bail as a rule while jail i s an exception. 4. Per contra, learned A.P.G., vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It was argued that during interrogation, the applicant voluntarily led the poli ce party to the recovery of the unlicensed weapon, which was duly sealed in the presence of mashirs, and such recovery connects the applicant directly wi th the commission of the offence. She maintained that the recovered weapon is linked with a heinous crime registered against the applicant in the connected case, thereby establishing his culpability. It was further contende d that the offence under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 is a seri ous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and given the gravity of allegations as well as the recovery of the crime weapon, the applicant does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
[3] Criminal B.A. No.S-557 of 2025
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the available record with the tentative assessment permissible at bail stage. From the material so far collected, it prima facie appears that the alleged recovery has been shown at the instance of the applicant when he was alre ady in police custody in connection with another case. Such reco veries are always to be appreciated with great caution, particularly at the bail stage, as the possibility of foisting or planting of alleged crime weapon cannot be ruled out. It is also significant to note that the alleged recovery is not from the direct and exclusive possession of the applicant but from an open place allege dly pointed out by him, which diminishes its evidentiary value and makes its credibility a matter to be determined at trial. Further, the applicant has been assi gned the role of making aerial and ineffective firing in the main case, and i t is yet to be judicially determined during trial whether such act was actually committed and, if so, whether it endangered human life or not. At this stage, t he benefit of doubt in respect of such allegation must go to the accused. Moreover, the alleged mashirs of recovery proceedings are not independent witness es but persons closely associated with the police, which casts doubt on the impartiality of the recovery proceedings. The non -association of private, respectable, and independent witnesses of the locality, despit e availability, creates further infirmity in the prosecution case. It is set tled principle that where the case calls for further inquiry within the contemplation of Se ction 497(2) Cr.P.C, the concession of bail is to be granted as a rule and refu sal is an exception. The offence under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, though not to be taken lightly, does not entail capital punishment suc h as death or imprisonment for life; rather, it provides for a sentence which may e xtend up to ten years. However, the exact applicability of the provision and t he extent of liability of the applicant are matters to be determined at the s tage of trial.
[4] Criminal B.A. No.S-557 of 2025 The applicant has remained behind bars since his arrest, is no longer required for investigation, and there is no likelihood of tampering with police evidence as all the witnesses are official in nature. The conclusion of tri al is likely to take considerable time, and continued incarceration of the applican t without a final determination would amount to punishment before convictio n, which is against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. In these circumstances, the case against the applicant requires further inquiry into his gui lt within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the connected case, the applicant has already been found entitled to the concession o f bail, which fortifies his entitlement to bail in the present case as well. Thus , on tentative assessment, the applicant has succeeded in making out a case fo r grant of post- arrest bail. In the case of Ilatf Ahmed v. The State (2022 MLD 1367) , a learned Single Bench of this Court granted bail to the applicant in an offence u nder Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, on similar grounds, where the recovery of weapon was shown in connection with a case of aerial and ineffective firing upon the police. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail application is allowe d. The applicant/accused Fayyaz son of Ali Hassan Otho was admitted to pos t-arrest bail in Crime No.04/2025 registered at Police Station Mahi Otho @ Karampur for offence under Sec tion 25 Sindh Arms Act, 2013, subject to furnishing solvent surety in t he sum of Rs.100,000/ - (One Lac only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and these are the reasons of my short o rder dated 26.08.2025. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
JUDGE