Peer Muhammad vs State S — 2026 YLR 706 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.

Peer Muhammad VS State S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 334, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-G & 427---Itlaf-i-udw, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused-applicant was that he while operating a chingchi rickshaw had an accident with motorcycle being operated by a motorcyclist, who got injured in the said accident---As per record, it was not the case of prosecution that the accused-applicant had any motive to hit injured or that he hit him intentionally---First Information Report described the event which caused injury to the accused as "an accident"---Thus, although the injury attributed to the applicant/accused had resulted in the amputation of part of the leg of the injured (below the knee), resulting in the challan under the non-bailable S.334, P.P.C., yet the FIR in the first instance, mentioned only the bailable offence under S.337-G---Thus, while the remaining Sections introduced in the challan were all bailable, S.334, P.P.C raised further questions as to whether the applicant/accused was driving recklessly, negligently or with the intention to cause hurt, which issue too became a matter of evidence and this stage of proceedings, one that required further inquiry---Prosecution had claimed that the applicant/accused did not have a valid permit to operate a chingchi loader rickshaw, however, the lack of a permit might have constituted a breach of some other law, but it was not material in the facts and circumstances of this case to reject bail to the applicant/accused---In the present scenario, a tentative assessment of the evidence showed that the applicant/accused was a permanent resident of Pakistan having a valid Afghan Citizen Card ("ACC")---Parents of the accused/applicant, both father and mother and his three siblings/brothers all had an ACC---Resident/accused and his immediate family were continuing to reside in Pakistan, legally---Family was earning their wage(s) and daily bread and butter in Pakistan and were economically entrenched in Pakistan---Therefore, the applicant/accused might not be an imminent flight risk, as apprehended by the prosecution---Case of the applicant accused called for further inquiry---Punishment for the offences alleged also did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C---Thus, the grant of bail was the rule and its refusal was an exception---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Peer Muhammad vs State S — 2026 YLR 706 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR