2026 PLP 203 (YLR)

Dr. Syed Fiaz-ul-Hassan Shah, J.

The Applicant Noor Mohammad seeks his admission to post arrest bail in Crime No. 6 of 2025 under sections 324, 506(ii), 504 and 34 P.P.C registered with P.S Mula Katiar, TMK.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant used to reside in Village Manthar Samepoto Taluka Bulri Shah Karim and she is house wife. It is stated that on 31.1.2025 at 1130 hours complainant along with her son Daim Ali and brother of complainant namely Muhammad Rafique son of Ahmed were going to Shrine Ahmed Muhammad for ziarat meanwhile at 1200Hrs when they reached near Dargah, there each one namely

1. Noor Muhammad son of Qadir Bux armed with Pistol,

2. Haji Muhammad alias Babli son of Umer armed with Pistol,

3. Ashique son of Muhammad Siddique,

4. Fayaz Ali son of Eshaque Samepoto both were empty handed came there and with whom the complainant were not in bonds they on seeing complainant party made Hakals on the force of weapons and caught hold her son Daim Ali from his arms and collar took away him towards incline of road side by beating him, behind them the complainant party traced them by crying at the moment Noor Muhammad and Haji Muhammad Alais Babli Samepoto asked the complainant party not to come forward otherwise they will murder them, due to fear complainant party stopped there where they Noor Muhammad Samepoto made straight fire from his pistol on Daim Ali with intention to commit his murder, which hit him on his right leg and he felt down on the floor, then he made second fire from his pistol which hit Daim Ali on his left ankle. On that complainant party raised cries on that all accused left scene with weapons by using filthy language and murderous threats on their motorcycle. After that complainant arranged vehicle and brought Daim Ali at PS Mulakatiar and got letter for his medical treatment and went to civil hospital Tando Muhammad Khan, where doctor provided first aid to injured and referred him to Hyderabad Civil hospital for further treatment, hence this FIR.

3. The learned DPG strongly opposed the bail application. He contended that incident was taken place in day light and the specific role has assigned to the Applicant and due to gun short injuries of the Applicant, the victim prosecution witness could not walk on his leg and sufficient ocular account is on record in shape of two prosecution witnesses. She requested to dismiss the bail application.

4. As per the contents of the crime report, the allegations against the applicant is that he, while armed with pistol launch an attack on the complainant's son and the medical evidence available on record prime officiates, support the stance of the applicant. During hearing of arguments it appears from the record that the crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of 6 days. The delayed registration of FIR shows deliberation and consultation on the part of the complainant. The prosecution has failed to collect come weapon in order to get match with the empties casing secured from the come scene for corroboration.

5. It is now well established that mere involvement of an accused in an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. does not automatically disentitle them from the grant of bail. If the case requires further inquiry into the accused's guilt, bail may still be considered. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of "Shoukat Ilahi v. Javed Iqbal and others", (2010 SCMR 966), elaborated on the grounds for granting bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause. The Court held that bail can be granted if the establishment of conviction requires further inquiry, reinforcing the principle that detention should not be punitive but precautionary Section 497 Cr.P.C. itself provides that if reasonable grounds for believing the accused's guilt are absent, but sufficient grounds exist for further inquiry, the accused should be released on bail pending such inquiry. This interpretation ensures that bail provisions serve as a safeguard against undue incarceration while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

6. Conversely, the case of the Applicant falls within non-prohibitory clause. According to the medical report of the injured prosecution witness (Daim Ali) has received injuries which has been declared as Gaayr Jaifah Munaqqilah and Mutalaimah sections 337-F(i) and (vi) P.P.C for which maximum punishment of sentence as prescribed by law is three and seven years which does not fall within limb of prohibitory clause and thus the grant of bail is a right and the refusal is exception.

7. The Rule of Bail and Its Jurisprudential Significance-The principle of bail is deeply rooted in the reasonableness of sufficient material presented in each case, assessed on its own interdependent merits. The formulation of a tentative assessment relies on the fundamental analogy that if an accused is ultimately acquitted after a prolonged trial, criminal statutory laws do not provide alternative remedies or compensatory measures for the extended incarceration endured under unproven charges. While civil law offers damages for malicious prosecution, this remedy remains inadequate and fails to comprehensively address the indefinite incarceration of an accused during trial Criminal jurisprudence, by its nature, does not accommodate or standardize prolonged detention in cases where the accused is acquitted. The only exception exists when an accused is convicted, in which case the period of incarceration is considered and culminates into the final sentence.

8. A progressive analysis of statutory provisions governing bail reveals that superior courts have devised an intermediary approach to balance criminal jurisprudence with constitutional rights. This balance is achieved by evaluating the sufficiency of maternal against the buil seeker or identifying reasonable doubt, thereby turning the matter into a case of further inquiry. The courts, through their interpretations, ensure that bail provisions serve as a safeguard against undue incarceration.

9. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Hakim Ali Zardari v. State", (PLD 1998 SC 1) held that the law of bail is not static, rather it continuously evolves, adapting to the exigencies of time and the changing dynamics of legal principles. The primary objective of incarcerating an accused during a pending trial is to prevent the repetition of the alleged offense, safeguard evidence from potential destruction, and ensure the accused's presence throughout the judicial proceedings. However, these objectives must be pursued in strict adherence to legal processes and the fundamental rights of the accused. The right to liberty is a cornerstone of justice, recognized as an essential freedom of every individual. Bail provisions serve as a mechanism to balance the necessity of detention with the accused's right to freedom, ensuring that incarceration is not arbitrary but justified by legal reasoning.

10. Superior courts have consistently interpreted bail laws in a manner that aligns with constitutional guarantees, emphasizing that detention should not be punitive but precautionary. The evolving jurisprudence surrounding bail reflects a commitment to safeguarding individual rights while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Guidance can also be taken from the case of "Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others" (2016 SCMR 18) The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it is for the prosecution to show sufficient material or concrete record, constituting reasonable grounds that accused has committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C whereas the accused has to show that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution.

11. The Challan has been submitted before the trial and the Applicant is no more required for investigation. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be achieved while to keep the Applicant into incarceration for an indefinite period of trial and the Prosecution has no apprehension that the Applicant, if he is released, he might be damaged or tamper with the prosecution's evidence. The Prosecution has not highlighted circumstances, which would indicate that any exceptions to the aforesaid rule as per the said case laws apply in the present case.

12. Under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, when an investigation has been completed and challan has been submitted before the trial Court, the Applicant in case, he is freed, he cannot tamper with the prosecution evidence nor is there any prior conviction and no apprehension of absconding has been expressed at all. It does not appear that the Applicant's incarceration would serve the cause of justice.

13. The material collected by the Investigation Officer and challan submitted in the Court so far against the Applicant is based upon suspicion which obviously to be decided by the trial Court after completion of trial and adducing the evidence by the prosecution about the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and as to whether section 324 P.P.C is applicable or not and the Supreme Court has not appreciated to curtail the liberty of a person on merely bald allegations. Reliance can be placed on "Gul Mohammad v. The State" (2023 SCMR 857).

14. The epitome of above discussion is that the applicant is admitted to the post-arrest bail against the surety in sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and PR Bond in an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein above are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition and shall not prejudice the case of either side during trial. JK/N-40/Sindh Bail granted.