2026 M L D 414


 2026 M L D 414

[Sindh]

Before Jawad Akbar Sarwana, J

MUHAMMAD AZAM---Applicant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Bail Application No. 2080 of 2025, decided on 12th August,

2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 498 & 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380, 448, 457, 337-

A(i), 504, 506, 511, 147, 148 & 149---Theft in a dwelling house, tent,

or vessel, house trespass, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking

by night to commit an offence, causing shajjah-i-khafifah,

intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace,

criminal intimidation, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail---Protective ad-interim pre-

arrest bail, grant of---Accused sought protective ad-interim pre-

arrest bail to enable him to appear before the Court---No effort was

shown on the part of the applicant/accused to make any attempt to

surrender before the competent Court to justify the pre-arrest

interim bail which had been filed in the first instance before the

High Court---No documentary evidence was annexed with the

application to demonstrate any resistance on the part of the

complainants or otherwise, or any breach of peace concerning the

applicant/accused surrendering himself before the Trial Court---

Therefore, no case of pre-arrest bail was made out in the facts and

circumstances of the case---Pre-arrest bail was converted into a

protective bail and the applicant was granted protective bail for 15

days---Applicant was to surrender before the Trial Court---Petition

was disposed of.

PLD 2009 SC 427 and 2004 SCMR 1167 ref.

Muhammd Munsif Jan along with Applicant.

ORDER

JAWAD AKBAR SARWANA, J.---Urgency is granted.

2. Overruled.

3. Exemption is granted subject to all exceptions. 4. Applicant Muhammad Azam son of Muhammad Aslam is present

along with his Counsel to seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 575/2025 of

PS Shah Latif District Malir, Karachi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448,

511, 506, 504, 380, 457, 337A(i), P.P.C. It is contended that the FIR is

filed by one Advocate and supported by two other Advocates. He has

filed this bail application in the first instance before the High Court

rather than the trial Court in Malir. He has relied upon the Judgment

of Hon ble Supreme Court reported in PLD 2009 SC 427 and 2004 SCMR

1167 and two others passed by this (High) Court, namely a pre-arrest

interim bail granting order dated 16.05.2025 in Cr. Bail Appln.

No.1263/2025; and, another order dated 19.09.2024 for confirming bail

in Cr. Bail Appln. No.1308/2024. In both orders passed by this (High)

Court, the applicant / accused had attempted to surrender to the trial

Court. I have read the application, and there is no articulation of such

efforts in the Application. No effort is shown on the part of the

applicant/accused to make any attempt to surrender before the

competent Court to justify the pre-arrest interim bail which has been

filed in the first instance before this (High) Court. No documentary

evidence is annexed with the application to demonstrate any

resistance on the part of the complainants or otherwise, or any breach

of peace concerning the applicant/accused surrendering himself

before the trial court. Therefore, no case of pre-arrest bail is made out

in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Without touching the merits of the case, this pre-arrest bail is

converted into a protective bail, and the applicant above named is

granted protective bail for 15 days from today, subject to furnishing a

solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a PR bond in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. This protective

bail shall remain in force for 15 days from today or the date on which

the applicants will surrender before the trial court, whichever is

earlier. The Cr. Bail Application is treated as a protective bail

application and is disposed of.

JK/M-111/Sindh Order accordingly.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2026 P Cr. L J 638

Image
 2026 P Cr. L J 638 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J Mirza YAHYA BAIG and another---Petitioners Versus The STATE and others---Respondents Crl. Misc. Nos. 53550-B and 42305-B of 2025, decided on 30th September, 2025. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---First Information Report, registration of--- Object, purpose and scope---First Information Report is not meant to decide guilt or innocence but to activate law enforcing agencies to immediately move for collection/preservation of evidence. Ch. Muhammad Aslam and others v. Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh and others 2020 PCr.LJ 742; Skindar v. the State and another 2006 SCMR 1786; Haleem Khan v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 497; Muhammad Paryal v. The State 2019 YLR 2316; Muhammad Ilyas Ashraf and 3 others v. Aitzaz Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala and 2 others 2004 YLR 1299; Atta Ullah v. The State PLD 2000 Lah. 364; Riaz Ahmad and 3 others v. The State PLD 1994 Lah. 485; Rehman and others v. The State PLD 1968 ...
Read more

2026 P Cr. L J 105

Image
 2026 P Cr. L J 105 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)] Before Sardar Akbar Ali, J SAEED AKHTAR---Appellant Versus The STATE and another---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2024, decided on 26th June, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about nine hours and twenty- five minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution's perspective the occurrence took place on 06.11.2021 at 11:00 a.m. and was alleged to have been seen by complainant and her nephew but the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 08:25 p.m. i.e. with delay of about nine hours and twenty-five minutes, despite the fact that police station was just fifteen kilometers from the place of occurrence---In such a situation if those witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and also witnessed the...
Read more

2026 P Cr. L J 440

Image
 2026 P Cr. L J 440 [Sindh (Larkana Bench)] Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J KHADIM BHAYO---Appellant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. S-47 of 2024, decided on 8th April, 2025. (a) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven days in sending the weapon to Ballistic Expert---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of Ballistic Expert's report reflected that the crime weapon was received to their office on 20.11.2023 while it was allegedly recovered on 14.11.2023---Thus, there was delay of seven days in transmitting crime weapon from malkhana to Ballistic Expert, creating serious doubt into its safe custody at malkhana more particularly when the Mashir of recovery and arrest himself...
Read more