Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Balach Khan vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 MLD 1713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: MLD
Parties: Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Balach Khan vs State Ss
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 161; S. 497; Penal Code ( XLV of 1860 )

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Balach Khan VS State Ss. 497 & 161---Penal Code ( XLV of 1860 ), Ss. 302, 324, 506(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Nomination through supplementary statement---Rule of consistency---Allegation against the petitioner /accused was that he allegedly provided refuge within his residence to the principal accused who was purported to have indiscriminately fired upon three persons, resulting in their demise--Validity---Admittedly, it was the principal accused who directly opened fire on three individuals, culminating in their fatal injuries---First Information Report delineated the incident as an offshoot of a familial and matrimonial dispute---Significantly, the petitioner's name was not originally recorded in the FIR but surfaced subsequently through an additional statement by the complainant---Such statements, made under S.161, Cr.P.C, inherently warranted further judicial scrutiny, as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of co-accused who was granted bail by the High Court ---Consequently, the petitioner, by the rule of consistency, was equally entitled to bail---Petitioner had been behind bars since his arrest and with the investigation having concluded, his continued detention served no tangible purpose---Given the indeterminate timeframe for the trial's completion, prolonging the applicant's incarceration would be unjustified---Petitioner / accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD

2025 MLD 1208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHCitation Name: 2025 MLD 1208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Anwer Majid VS Emirates Bank International PJSC (formerly Union Bank…
2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHCitation Name: 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Sharif VS State Ss. 504, 506-B, 148, 149, 337-a(i) & 337-F(…
2025 MLD 1973 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREFahim Ahmed Saeed VS Mian Humayun Mahmud O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, O.XLIII, R.1(r) --- appeal against order of Trial Court refusing to grant ad-inte…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 191---Perjury (false evidence)---Administration of justice---Duty of Courts---Perjury is a vice which stigmatizes…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 191---False evidence---Necessary ingredients---Section 191, P.P.C talks about making of false statement in follow…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 192---Fabricating false evidence---Necessary ingredients---Requirement of S.192 P.P.C. is met only if there is an…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English