Muhammad Ali vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Muhammad Ali VS State Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of either party. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Ali VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 504, 147 & 149---Causing lathi injuries---Interim---Pre-arrest bail, realling of---Admittedly, the applicant/accused was nominated in the F.I.R with a specific role of causing lathi injury to the son of the complainant on his head, which was a vital part of the body---Injury was declared to be shajjah-i-hashimah falling under S.337-A(iii), P.P.C and carried a punishment of ten years---Eye-witnesses had recorded their S.161, Cr.P.C statements, which fully implicated the applicant/accused with the commission of an offence---Ocular version of the witnesses was supported by medical evidence---Defence failed to point out any ill will either on the part of the complainant or the Investigating Officer to implicate the applicant accused in the offence---On the sole ground of delay in the registration of FIR., bail could not be granted---Applicant had raised the plea of alibi by saying that he was not available at the relevant time at the place of the incident, but he was busy in his office---Although a plea of alibi could not be summarily dismissed, it was essential to assess its genuineness and authenticity---Such evaluation could only be properly undertaken when the matter was brought before the Trial Court---Applicant alleged that the co-accused had been granted pre-arrest bail by the Trial Court, whereas the request for pre-arrest bail by the present applicant had been rejected---Said co-accused were predominantly associated with injuries categorized under Ss.337-A(i), F(i), and L(2) of the P.P.C, which were bailable offences---In contrast, the role of the present applicant was entirely distinct from those of the co-accused who were granted pre-arrest bail---Consequently, the principle of consistency did not apply in the matter---Pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy characterized by a limited scope and it may only be granted under circumstances where the applicant does not prima facie appear to have committed a non-bailable offence or where there exists a necessity for further probe into his culpability, as outlined in S.497(2), Cr.P.C, which was prima facie missing in the present case---Primary objectives of pre-arrest bail are to protect individuals from the threat of arrest arising from potential abuse of process driven by malicious intent or malevolence, which had not been demonstrated in the present case---Pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances---Resultantly, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was recalled.

Muhammad Ali vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD