Muhammad Umer vs State S — 2026 YLR 774 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.

Muhammad Umer VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395---Dacoity---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the applicant/ accused was that he committed dacoity of Rs. 70,000 and theft of mobile phones from the friends of the complainant on gun point---Record revealed that the accused/applicant had been in police custody in a different FIR, when the two witnesses/victims, while visiting that Police Station (a totally different Police Station from the one where the FIR of present occurrence was registered) identified the accused on 04.08.2024 and nominated him for the first time as per the S.161, Cr.P.C statements---Record showed that the accused/applicant was identified by a different victim in the identification parade from the two persons (complainant and another victim) who identified the same accused/applicant in police custody at the police station, a few days earlier---When the identification parade was conducted after the complainant nominated the petitioner, then, in these circumstances, the sanctity of the test identification parade, prima facie, opened the door to further inquiry---Police papers showed that the counsel for the complainant/eye-witnesses/victims was also present at the time of the identification parade and recorded his objections, when the protocol in such cases was that he should not have been present; it appeared that the protocol was not followed---Bottom line was that, the mode and manner of the identification parade did not inspire confidence, particularly when the FIR was lodged against unknown accused, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, triggered a need for further inquiry and merited consideration as one of the points for the concession of bail to the accused/applicant---Alleged incident took place on 27.07.2024, but it took the complainant/eye-witness/victim, who also alleged that the crime involved five accused, seven (7) days before one of the five victims of the crime registered FIR, on 03.08.2024---No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the FIR---Out of the five eye-witnesses, only one stepped forward as the complainant to lodge the criminal complaint---Furthermore, as per the timing of filing the FIR, the said FIR was registered at Police Station, "KAN", on 03.08.2024, when the accused/applicant was already in police custody in another Police Station in connection with another FIR at the time---Thereafter, on the very next day, two of the five witnesses also proceeded to other Police Station to identify the accused, not at Police Station "KAN" but at other Police Station, where the accused/applicant was being held in police custody---All these events, including the timeline of how the accused was identified and the delay in filing the FIR required further inquiry---Nothing had been recovered from the applicant/accused---Yet, the prosecution had submitted in the lower forum, and once again before this Court, that the accused/applicant was involved in crimes of a similar nature and was charged in several FIRs---Prosecution's submission was not persuasive---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Umer vs State S — 2026 YLR 774 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR