YLR 2025

2025 PLP 999 (YLR)

Meer Muhammad Chandio — Applicant Versus The State — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2024-October-8
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2025 PLP 999 (YLR)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties Meer Muhammad Chandio — Applicant Versus The State — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 999 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 999 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 999 (YLR) (Meer Muhammad Chandio — Applicant Versus The State — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 498 & 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(vi), 337-L(2), 114 & 504

Munaqqilah, causing hurt, abettor present at the time of offence, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Further inquiry

Applicant was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing hatchet blow to injured/complainant on his fingers of the hand, which was non-vital part of the body and had not been declared by the Medico-Legal Officer to be fatal for his life

Incident was said to have occurred on 30.06.2024, whereas FIR was lodged on 20.07.2024 i.e. with delay of about one month for which no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay

Delay in criminal cases had always been considered to be fatal for the prosecution case

Thus, case against applicant required further inquiry within meaning of subsection (2) to S.497 Cr.P.C

Interim bail earlier granted to applicant was confirmed, in circumstances. [pp.1000, 1001] A & B

Judgment & Decree

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.

Through this application, applicant Meer Muhammad seeks his admission to pre-arrest bail in Crime No.136 of 2024 registered with Police Station Mirpur Bathoro, for the offences punishable to Sections 114, 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) and 504 P.P.C. The applicant preferred his anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions wherefrom it was assigned to Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Sujawal vide Criminal Bail Application No.525 of 2024 (re-Meer and another v. The State), who after hearing the parties, has turned down his request through order dated 27.07.2024; hence, instant bail application has been maintained.

2. Since the facts of the prosecution case are already mentioned in the FIR, which is annexed with the Court file, therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation against accused is that he allegedly had caused hatchet blows to injured /complainant which hit on his fingers and the injury allegedly sustained by him has been described by the MLO to be Shajjah-i-Ghayr Jaifah [337-F(vi) P.P.C] which carries maximum punishment up to seven years; besides, remaining offences are bailable. He next submits that co-accused Waheed and Sattar have already been granted bail by the Court below, therefore, case of present applicant is at par with them; hence, prays for confirmation of the bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy P.G, Sindh appearing for the State, opposes the bail application on the ground that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injury to injured, therefore, he is not entitled for the bail.

5. The complainant, inspite of notice, has chosen to remain absent.

6. Heard arguments and perused record. No doubt, the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing hatchet blow to injured PW/complainant Khan Muhammad on his fingers of the hand, which is non-vital part of the body and has not been declared by the MLO to be fatal for his life. The incident is said to have occurred on 30.06.2024; whereas, FIR was lodged on 20.07.2024 i.e. with delay of about one month for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay. The delay in criminal cases has always been considered by the superior Courts to be fatal for the prosecution case. The case has been challaned which is now pending for trial before the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Bathoro where accused has surrendered and joined the trial, which as per statement at the bar, has been adjourned to 18.10.2024.

7. In the circumstances and in view of dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733), case against applicant requires further inquiry within meaning of subsection (2) to section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant bail application is hereby allowed; interim bail granted earlier to applicant Meer Muhammad son of Manzoor Ali Chandio on 13.09.2024 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

8. Applicant present before the Court is directed to continue his appearance before the trial Court without negligence and in case he may misuse the concession or may tamper with the prosecution's evidence then the trial Court would be competent to take legal action against him as well to his surety in terms of Section 514 Cr.P.C. Trial Court is also hereby directed to make necessary arrangements for securing attendance of the prosecution witnesses and conclude the trial within shortest possible time under intimation to this Court through MIT-II.

9. Let copy of this Order be communicated to trial Court through learned Sessions Judge, concerned. Learned MIT-II to ensure compliance. JK/M-7/Sindh Bail confirmed.