Photo vs State S — 2026 YLR 390 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.

Photo VS State S.497(1)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365, 511, 382, 337-H(2) & 34---Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, attempt to commit offence---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the applicant/ accused were that he along with his co-accused kidnapped the brother of the complainant and confined him at unknown place; later on seeing the villagers caused aerial firing and took away his motorcycle, mobile phone and wallet containing Rs. 9000/----Allegations against the applicant as to his involvement in the crime were supported by the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under S.161, Cr.P.C, which included the statements of abductee and eye-witness---Incident was further supported by the medical certificate of victim---Furthermore, the recovery of the stolen motorcycle, as well as the mobile phone and wallet of the victim, had also been affected from the applicant/accused during investigation, which directly connected him with the crime---Prima facie, sufficient incriminating material was available on the record which could connect the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence---Bail could be refused in such offences when the case of the accused fell within any of the three well-established exceptions: (i) likelihood to abscond to escape trial; (ii) likelihood to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; and (iii) likelihood to repeat the offence---In the present case, the applicant appeared to have had the real motive of previous scuffle with injured (as mentioned in the FIR) for the commission of the alleged offence while the others abetted him in his cause---Other accused persons were absconders, and the police had so far only succeeded to bring the applicant to justice---There was thus a likelihood that the applicant might abscond if he was released on bail---Exceptions of likelihoodof repeating the offence and influencing the witness were thus also attracted---Case of the applicant, therefore, attracted not one but almost all the three exceptions which justified the declining of bail falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Photo vs State S — 2026 YLR 390 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR