Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1833 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ali Nawaz vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1833 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ali Nawaz VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, dismissal of---Compromise at the stage of hearing of bail application---Scope---Allegation against the accused-applicant was that he along with his co-accused committed murder of two uncles of the complainant by firing---Subsection (2) of S.345 Cr.P.C., deals with cases in which the offences specified therein could be compounded, but only with the permission of the Court, and any compromise arrived at between the parties on their own at any stage is not to take effect automatically, without Court's sanction---No such application had been filed, nor the exercise under S. 345(2),Cr.P.C.,had been carried, nor all the legal heirs of the two deceased had been verified---Compromise (purportedly) entered into between the parties in a criminal case, while considering application for bail, was to have no value, until the same was duly accepted and recorded by the Trial Court---Contention on behalf of the applicant was therefore untenable and there appeared to be no infirmity in the impugned order on this point---It was alleged by petitioner that during his examination-in-chief, complainant had failed to identify the accused persons, which made it a case of further inquiry, hence the applicant be admitted to bail---Perusal of the record showed that bail application was moved by the applicant before the Trial Court on 01-10-2024 and the impugned order thereon was passed on 20-11-2024---Instant application was filed on 19-12-2024, whereas the date of examination-in-chief of complainant was 16-01-2025 i.e. 56 days after passing of the impugned order and 27 days after filing of the instant bail application---Therefore, such fact had come into existence after passing of the impugned order and even after filing of the bail application before this Court, and therefore, a ground which was not taken before the Court of first instance could not be raised at the level of hearing of bail before the High Court for the first time, but the same ought to be pleaded before the Court of first instance---In the present case, there were two dead bodies and the accused had been directly nominated in the FIR and empties had also been recovered---Applicants had been directly nominated in the FIR along with weapons for effective firing and for causing death of two persons and empties had been recovered from the crime scene, which prima facie connected the accused person with the crime---Secondly, neither any valid or verified compromise had been permitted by the Court, nor any such application had been moved by the legal heirs, nor any exercise as contemplated under S.345,Cr.P.C., had been conducted---Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1833 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ali Nawaz vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1833 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ