Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1439 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mubeen 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 YLR 1439 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mubeen VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377, 377-B, 292-C, 382, 322, 415, 506(ii) & 34---Sodomy, sale etc. of obscene content, theft after preparation, qatl bis-sabab, criminal intimidation, common intention---Bail, grant of---Lack of essential incriminating material/ evidence---Deceased committed suicide, however later, on the statement of one of the prosecution witnesses ('witness-in-question'), the accused persons were alleged to have committed sodomy with the deceased while making his video and uploaded the same, which led to his suicide---Witness-in-question failed to disclose the name of the person who allegedly disclosed the information regarding video clips/photos of the alleged act of the deceased, leading to his suicide---Furthermore, witness-in-question himself had not seen the said video clips/photos of the alleged act, as was evident from the perusal of his statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, as well as the Trial Court---Further, the Investigating Officer, present in court, stated that he did not send the mobile phone of deceased for forensic analysis; he also did not check the SIM cards allegedly belonging to the deceased and no Call Data Record (CDR) was collected to establish the location of the deceased at the time of the incident---The lack of such material evidence, coupled with failure of said witness to provide relevant details about the alleged video recording/clips, raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations---Notably, witness-in-question was not present at the time of the incident and he too failed to provide crucial information regarding the sharing of the video clips with the accused ; he also failed to disclose the source of evidence to ascertain how he obtained knowledge about the sharing of the video clips/photos on WhatsApp---Thus, considering the absence of essential evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the discrepancies in the testimony of witness-in-question, it was a case warranting further inquiry ---Bail was granted to the applicants/accused, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1439 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mubeen vs State S — 2025 YLR 1439 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR