2026 P Cr. L J 401

 2026 P Cr. L J 401

[Islamabad]

Before Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Azam Khan, JJ

MUHAMMAD HAMMAD---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1626-B of 2025, decided on 28th October,

2025.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 336-B--Causing itlaf-

salahiyyat-i-udw---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused-

petitioner was that he threw acid at the complainant, which

splashed onto her right arm, causing serious burns, while some of it

also fell on her younger sister s face---Record reflected that the

petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR with a clear and

defined role, wherein it was alleged that he threw acid upon the

complainant and her sister, resulting in burn injuries---First

Information Report was lodged promptly, without any delay, which

lent credence to the prosecution's version and negated the

possibility of afterthought or deliberation---Medical report issued by

hospital confirmed that the injuries sustained by the complainant

and her sister were caused by a corrosive substance, thereby

corroborating the ocular account---Furthermore, the empty acid

bottle allegedly used in the commission of offence was produced by

the complainant and the Naqsha-e-Mazroobi was prepared by the

Investigating Officer immediately after the occurrence which also

corroborated and lent further support to the complainant's version--

-Offence fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and was

non-bailable in nature---Such like heinous offences involving

violence, particularly where the victim had sustained serious burn

injuries, the grant of bail was an exception and could only be

considered where the prosecution's case appeared inherently

doubtful or lacked prima facie corroboration, but such

circumstances were not evident in the present case---At this stage,

the available evidence, including medical corroboration and

recovery of the acid container, sufficiently connected the petitioner

with the alleged offence---Contention of the defense regarding non-

availability of forensic report or independent witnesses did not, at

this preliminary stage, discredit the otherwise consistent ocular and

medical evidence, which could only be properly appreciated after

recording of evidence at trial---Submission that the case was fabricated due to matrimonial discord also appeared to be a defense

plea, which could not be conclusively determined at the bail stage---

Petition for bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---

Observations made in bail order are tentative in nature and shall

have no bearing on the final determination of guilt or innocence by

the Trial Court.

Khan Mulk Tarrar, Azeem-ul-Haq Alvi and Ms. Afia Anwar for

Petitioner.

Rana Hassan Abbas, ADPP for the State.

Mansoor Ahmad, Inspector/I.O., P.S. Khanna.

ORDER

C.M. No. 01/2025:

1. Through the instant Application the Petitioner seeks placement of

certain additional documents on record.

2. The Application is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.

C.M. No. 02/2025:

Exemption sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal

exceptions.

MAIN CASE:

1. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner is seeking post-arrest

bail in FIR No. 149/25 dated 22.01.2025 for the offence under Section

336-B P.P.C. registered with P.S. Khanna, Islamabad ( Subject FIR ).

2. Brief facts as per the contents of the FIR are that the Complainant,

Mst. Ramsha daughter of Muhammad Nawaz, resident of Nazakat

Market, Sohan, Islamabad, submitted a written application to the

Station House Officer, Police Station Koral, Islamabad, stating that she

had been married approximately three years ago to the Petitioner

[Muhammad Hammad son of Muhammad Jameel], resident of Satra

Meel, near Phool Hotel, Bhara Kahu, Islamabad. According to the

Complainant, the Petitioner was addicted to drugs, and within two to

three months of the marriage, he began subjecting her to severe

physical abuse without any justifiable reason. From the wedlock, they

have a son named Shayan, aged about one and a half years. About a

week prior to the incident, her husband again subjected her to violence

and forcibly expelled her from their house, upon which she, along with

her son, took refuge at her parents home in Nazakat Market, Sohan. On 18.01.2025, the Petitioner came to her parents residence and forcibly

took away their minor son Shayan. Thereafter, on 22.01.2025, at about

6:00 p.m., the Petitioner once again came to her parents house and

demanded that she accompany him back. At that time, besides the

Complainant, her uncle Muhammad Shaban, her mother Sumaira Bibi,

her aunt Sakeena Bibi, her younger sister Umme Huriya, and other

minor children were also present in the house. Upon her refusal to go

with him, the Petitioner took out a bottle of acid hidden under his

shawl and threw it on the Complainant with the intent to burn her. The

acid splashed onto her right arm, causing serious burns, while some of

it also hit her younger sister Umme Huriya s face and the nearby wall.

After committing the heinous act, the Petitioner fled from the scene.

The Complainant, along with her injured sister, appeared before the

police to lodge a report, seeking legal action against the Petitioner.

Upon receipt of the written complaint, the police recorded the

Complainant s statement, and registered the Subject FIR.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the

Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case on the basis

of a concocted and exaggerated version arising out of strained

matrimonial relations. It was argued that the allegations are

inherently improbable and unsupported by any independent or

reliable evidence, and that despite the passage of nearly five months,

the challan has not been submitted, amounting to a denial of the

Petitioner s right to fair and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 10-

A of the Constitution. The learned counsel further submitted that the

alleged occurrence took place at the Complainant s parental home, a

populated area, yet no independent witness or CCTV footage has been

produced to substantiate the story narrated in the FIR. It was

emphasized that no burn assessment report, chemical examiner s

report, or recovery of any chemical substance is available on record,

nor is there any forensic evidence linking the Petitioner to the alleged

act, rendering the prosecution version highly doubtful at this stage.

The learned counsel maintained that the FIR itself discloses prior

domestic discord, suggesting a motivated and retaliatory complaint

lodged after marital separation. It was urged that the continued

detention of the Petitioner, in absence of incriminating material or

completion of investigation, is unjustified, particularly when essential

ingredients of the alleged offence, injury and intent remain unproven.

Lastly, it was argued that the Petitioner has no previous criminal

record, is a law-abiding citizen with deep roots in society, and

undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and trial without

tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; hence, the

Petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. 4. Conversely, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor

(ADPP) opposed the bail petition, contending that the allegations

against the accused are of a grave and heinous nature, involving an

acid attack resulting in serious burn injuries to the Complainant and

her sister. It was argued that the offence falls within the prohibitory

clause and entails severe punishment, therefore, the accused does not

deserve the concession of bail at this stage. On the other hand, the

learned ADPP stated that sufficient material is available on record

connecting the Petitioner with the commission of the offence, and that

the challan has already been submitted before the Trial Court on

31.01.2025. It was further contended that the grant of bail in such a

serious case may prejudice the trial and could enable the accused to

influence witnesses or tamper with evidence; hence, the bail petition

merits dismissal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The record reflects that the Petitioner is specifically nominated in

the FIR with a clear and defined role, wherein it is alleged that he

threw acid upon the Complainant and her sister, resulting in burn

injuries. The FIR was lodged promptly, without any delay, which lends

credence to the prosecution s version and negates the possibility of

afterthought or deliberation. The medical report issued by PIMS

Hospital confirms that the injuries sustained by the Complainant and

her sister were caused by a corrosive substance, thereby corroborating

the ocular account. Furthermore, the empty acid bottle allegedly used

in the commission of offence was produced by the Complainant, and

the Naqsha-e-Mazroobi was prepared by the Investigating Officer

immediately after the occurrence which also corroborates and lends

further support to the Complainant s version.

7. The offence under Section 336-B P.P.C pertains to causing hurt by

corrosive substance and is punishable with imprisonment for life or

imprisonment up to fourteen years along with fine. Thus, it falls

within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and is non-bailable

in nature. In such like heinous offences involving violence,

particularly where the victim has sustained serious burn injuries, the

grant of bail is an exception and can only be considered where the

prosecution s case appears inherently doubtful or lacks prima facie

corroboration circumstances which are not evident in the present

case.

8. At this stage, the available evidence, including medical

corroboration and recovery of the acid container, sufficiently connects

the Petitioner with the alleged offence. The contention of the defense

regarding non-availability of forensic report or independent witnesses does not, at this preliminary stage, discredit the otherwise consistent

ocular and medical evidence, which can only be properly appreciated

after recording of evidence at trial. The submission that the case is

fabricated due to matrimonial discord also appears to be a defense

plea, which cannot be conclusively determined at the bail stage.

9. In view of the foregoing, there exist reasonable grounds to believe

that the Petitioner is prima facie connected with the commission of the

alleged offence, which is grave, heinous, and falls within the

prohibitory clause. The nature of the offence, the specific role

attributed to the Petitioner, and the corroborative medical and

physical evidence collectively disentitle him to the concession of post-

arrest bail at this stage.

10. Accordingly, the instant petition for post-arrest bail stands

dismissed.

11. All the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature

and shall have no bearing on the final determination of guilt or

innocence by the learned trial Court.

12. It is pertinent to observe that the record reflects that the bail

application of the Petitioner was earlier declined by the learned Judge,

Special Court No. II (Anti-Terrorism), Islamabad. However, the offence

under Section 336-B P.P.C is a scheduled offence under the Anti-Rape

(Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, and as such, the case is triable by

the special Court established under Section 3 of the said Act, which

exercises exclusive jurisdiction over offences specified in the

Schedule. The office is, therefore, directed to communicate a copy of

this order to the learned Trial Court so that appropriate steps may be

taken to ensure that the case is tried by the competent court in

accordance with law.

JK/214/Isl. Petition dismissed.