Roshan-ul-Din vs State S — 2026 YLR 755 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.

Roshan-ul-Din VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 509, 337-H(2), 337-F(i), 498-A, 447, 354, 511, 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, insulting modesty or causing sexual harassment, rash or negligent act endangering human life, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, criminal trespass, assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, attempting to commit offence, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Petition for pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that they allegedly resorted to abusive language, maltreatment and physical assault upon the womenfolk---Record showed that the applicant/accused "R" allegedly fired straight shot at the complainant, while the applicant/accused "M"was stated to have inflicted butt blow upon the left leg of the complainant's daughter---Thereafter, the applicants/accused purportedly dragged daughter of complainant out of the house, during which her clothes were torn, resulting in her exposure before the accused persons and other strangers---In such circumstances, the ingredients of S.354-A, P.P.C appeared to be fully attracted to the facts of the present case---However, complainant contended that the Investigating Officer, acting with mala fide by intention and ulterior motives, had unlawfully deleted S.354-A, P.P.C, from the case and, instead, had malafidely inserted S.511, P.P.C---From the contents of the FIR and the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer at this preliminary stage, it prima facie appeared that the provisions of S.354-A, P.P.C were fully attracted, as the accused persons allegedly assaulted the womenfolk by using criminal force, stripped one of them of her clothes and exposed her before the accused and other strangers---Investigating Officer had erroneously invoked S.511, P.P.C, whereas the material on record indicated that the alleged offence was completed in its entirety---Furthermore, the ocular account found corroboration from the medical evidence and the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., had fully supported the version of the complainant---Moreover, no mala fide intent or ulterior motive had been attributed to the complainant party by the applicants/accused---On the contrary, the applicants had been specifically named in the FIR with defined and particular roles---At bail stage, only tentative assessment was to be made---Sufficient material was available on the record to connect the applicants with the commission of alleged offence---Applicants had failed to establish the case warranting the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Roshan-ul-Din vs State S — 2026 YLR 755 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR