Khair Muhammad vs State S — 2026 YLR 1083 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.

Khair Muhammad VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant and caused injuries to his other brother through firing---According to the FIR, six accused persons, including the present applicant, collectively fired six shots at the deceased---Existence of enmity between the parties was an admitted fact---Besides, the complainant and two eye-witnesses had fully implicated the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence---Material available on record, at bail stage, prima facie connected the applicant with the offence alleged, which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C---With regard to the delay of twenty-three and a half hours in lodging the FIR, it had been specifically mentioned in the FIR that the complainant first informed the police and then proceeded to the hospital, where the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and the injured was also provided medical treatment---Hence, a plausible and primafacie satisfactory explanation for the delay was available on record---Even otherwise, mere delay in the registration of the FIR was not, by itself, a ground for the grant of bail---As for the opinion of the Investigating Officer recommending the release of the applicant/accused under S.169, Cr.P.C., due to alleged lack of evidence, it appeared that the Judicial Magistrate did not concur with such opinion---Judicial Magistrate observed that the Investigating Officer had failed to collect any corroborative material, such as Call Data Records (CDRs) or other tangible proof to establish that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Judicial Magistrate thus concluded that sufficient material existed to take cognizance against all accused persons---Veracity of the applicant's plea of alibi shall be determined at the trial stage---Pre-arrest bail was an extraordinary remedy of limited scope---Pre-arrest bail could only be granted in situations where the applicant did not, prima facie, appear to have committed a non-bailable offence, or where there existed a need for further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Such circumstances were prima facie absent in the present case---Applicant/accused had been shown to be armed with a Kalashnikov and a specific firearm injury was attributed to him, which found corroboration from the post-mortem report---From a tentative assessment of the material available with the prosecution, prima facie sufficient evidence existed to connect the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence, which carried punishment of death or imprisonment for life---Every conceivable or hypothetical contention that could be raised does not, by itself, render the matter one of further inquiry, particularly when such questions could be effectively determined by the Trial Court after the recording and evaluation of evidence---Interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to applicant was recalled and the bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Khair Muhammad vs State S — 2026 YLR 1083 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR