1) 628/2024 Cr.Bail SANIYAL ALI S/O MUHAMMAD ALI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Coming to the proposition bail in an offense punishable up to seven years, broadly speaking a person accused of a bailable offense has a right of admission to bail and an arrested person can be refused bail if it appears to the Court concerned that "reasonable grounds" exist for believing that he has been guilty of an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. Allegations against him are that he cheated the complainant and deprived him of his legitimate amount on the pretext that he would return the plot. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act V of 1898) {Code} for bail the offenses are divided into two categories termed ???Bailable offence??? and ???Non-bailable offence???. These are defined under Section 4(b) as under: -
(b) "Bail able offense, "non-bail able offence": "Bailable offence" means an offence shown as bail able in the Second Schedule or which is made bail able by any other law for the time being in force; and "non-bailable offence means any other offence???
Read more Matter:
BAIL BEFORE ARREST Advocates:Muhammad Aleem(ADVO-2374-SBC-HYD),Badar Hussain(ADVO-11544-SBC-KHI),Syed Jamil Ahmed Shah Bukhari(ADVO-161-SBC-HYD),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-JUL-24
2) 1050/2024 Cr.Bail QASIM ANWAR S/O MUHAMMAD ANWAR (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Murder Bail (When the trial is likely to commence, bail should not be decided on merit.)
Tag Line:
This Court ordinarily does not interfere with the progression of the trial to avoid discussion and remarks on the merits of the case as held in the case of Ehsan Akbar v. The State and 2 others (2007 SCMR 482). It has been long settled by the Supreme Court that when the trial is likely to commence or begin, bail application should not be decided on merits, and the matter be left to the trial Court because it may prejudice the case of either party. On the aforesaid proposition, I am guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Muhammad Sadik & others vs The State 1980 SCMR 203, Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Rafiq PLD 1989 SC 585, Mian Dad vs The State 1992 SCMR 1418, Gohar Rehman vs Muhammad Tahir 2011 SCMR 815.
Read more Matter:
BAIL AFTER ARREST Advocates:Muneer Ahmed Gilal(ADVO-13680-SBC-KHS),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-JUL-24
3) 987/2023 Criminal Miscelleneous DR. FATEH ALI S/O YAMEEN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Application under section 561-A Cr.PC (Direction for conducting impartial inquiry)
Tag Line:
Minute examination of a case and conducting a fact-finding exercise are not included in the functions of a Justice of Peace but he is saddled with a sense of duty to redress the grievance of the complainant who is aggrieved by the refusal of a Police Officer to register his report. The offenses have been categorized by the Cr.P.C. into two classes i.e., cognizable and non-cognizable. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. lays down a procedure for conveying information to an S.H.O. to the commission of a cognizable offense, while the provisions of Section 155 (1) of the Cr.P.C. articulates the procedure vis-??-vis a non-cognizable offense.
5. At whatever time, an Officer in charge of a Police Station receives some information about the commission of an offense, he is expected first to find out whether the offense disclosed fell into the category of cognizable offenses or non-cognizable offenses. There is no provision in any law, including Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C., which authorizes an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold any inquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information before complying with the command of the said provisions. He is obligated to reduce the same into writing, notwithstanding the fact whether such information is true or otherwise.
6. The condition precedent for recording an FIR is that it should convey the information of an offense and that too a cognizable one. The remedy of filing a direct complaint cannot measure or match up to the mechanism provided under section 154, Cr.P.C., in which the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is duty-bound to record the statement and register the FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. If in every case it is presumed or assumed that instead of insisting or emphasizing the lodgment of an FIR, the party may file a direct complaint, then the purpose of recording an FIR, as envisaged under section 154, Cr.P.C., will become redundant and futile and it would be very easy for the police to refuse the registration of an FIR with the advice to file a direct complaint. However, in some exceptional circumstances, the alternate remedy in the shape of a direct complaint may be availed but not in every case.
7. The statutory duty casts upon the officer of a police station to enter information regarding the cognizable offense first and then the investigation comes later to gather evidence and other relevant material to prosecute the identified culprits. No doubt, an Investigating Officer plays a crucial role in the administration of the criminal justice system and the constituent of the investigation report and its worth keeps hold of plenteous value and repercussions on the outcome of any criminal case, but tainted investigations can become an acute obstacle in the administration of justice. In the case of Sughra Bibi vs. State [PLD 2018 SC 595], it was held that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer is obliged to investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all the versions of the incident brought to his notice and as required by Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934. An Investigating Officer has to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person. Whereas in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujrat and others [(2010) 12 SCC 254], the Supreme Court of India held that investigation must be fair, transparent, and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law.
Read more Matter:
AGAINST ORDER Advocates:Mansoor Ahmed(ADVO-142-SBC-HYD),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 09-JUL-24
4) 1154/2024 Cr.Bail AAMIR ALI S/O MUHAMMAD SOOMRO (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (No Objection)
Tag Line:
Before deciding the post-arrest bail on merit, which is based on two versions one forwarded by the complainant present in court and the second by the investigating officer who challaned the case, who challaned the present applicant along with others, these two versions require thorough probe by the trial Court. However, I am cognizant of the fact that, while deciding a Bail Application, only allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nature and gravity of the charge, other incriminating material against the accused, legal pleas raised by the accused and relevant law have to be considered. However, in the present case, the record reveals that the offense with which the accused/applicant has been charged is non-compoundable. However, in view of the statement of the complainant as recorded above, as well as his affidavit of no objection, the case of the applicant/accused calls for further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The record also shows that the applicant/accused is not a previous convict nor a hardened criminal. Moreover, he has been behind bars since his arrest and is no longer required for any investigation nor the prosecution has claimed any exceptional circumstance, that could justify keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period pending the determination of his guilt. Consequently, while taking into consideration the statement of the complainant before the Court and his affidavit, the applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail in crime No. 145 of 2024 of PS Steel Town subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Read more Matter:
BAIL AFTER ARREST Advocates:Mazhar Iqbal(ADVO-9857-SBC-MLR),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 09-JUL-24
5) 114/2024 Criminal Miscelleneous MUHAMMAD ADEEL AKHTAR (Applicant) V/S THE STATE & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Application under section 561-A Cr.PC (Disposal of FIR under B Class)
Tag Line:
A bare perusal of the afore-quoted provision of law makes it clear that whenever an overt act is materialized and ended into an overt act, the provision of Section 506(ii) PPC would not be applicable and the only provision that will remain in the field is the overt act, which is committed in consequence of criminal intimidation. On the aforesaid proposition, I am guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Imran Nasarullah Vs. The State 2022 SCMR 1946. However, in the present case, the complainant simply stated that the accused came to his house and on the pointation of a pistol extended threats of dire consequences, intimidated him to sign a divorce deed and other documents, and left such house after intimidation However the subject act was no materialized and ended into an overt act for the investigating officer opined that no such incident ever took place and the complainant had falsely roped the accused in the case.
Read more Matter:
AGAINST THE ORDER Advocates:Sajid(ADVO-14482-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 09-JUL-24
6) 31/2024 Cr.Rev Sanaullah Sabzoi (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:NATURE OF CASE NOT ENTERED
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
Order Date: 08-JUL-24
7) 1049/2024 Cr.Bail ALI HAIDER S/O JAVAID AHMED (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (No Objection)
Tag Line:
Before deciding the post-arrest bail on merit, which is based on two versions one forwarded by the complainant present in court and the second by the investigating officer who challaned the case. However, I am cognizant of the fact that, while deciding a Bail Application, only allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nature and gravity of the charge, other incriminating material against the accused, legal pleas raised by the accused and relevant law have to be considered. However, in the present case, the record reveals that the offense with which the accused/applicant has been charged is non-compoundable. However, in view of the statement of the complainant, as well as his affidavit of no objection, the case of the applicant/accused calls for further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that the complainant does not wish to prosecute the accused and makes a categorical statement through his affidavit. As such, this Court Court has left no option but to see the version of the complainant, which is a paramount consideration at the bail stage, though the offense is not compoundable, however, the version of the complainant cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The record also shows that the applicant/accused is not a previous convict nor a hardened criminal as no record has been produced to the aforesaid effect. Moreover, he has been behind bars since his arrest and is no longer required for any investigation nor the prosecution has claimed any exceptional circumstance, that could justify keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period pending the determination of his guilt. Consequently, while taking into consideration the statement of the complainant before the Court and his affidavit, the applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Read more Matter:
BAIL AFTER ARREST Advocates:Dur Muhammad(ADVO-594-SBC-SUK),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-JUL-24
8) 764/2024 Cr.Bail SUBASH S/O JAYRAM (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (Accused specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role)
Tag Line:
Before deciding the post-arrest bail on merit, which is based on two versions one forwarded by the complainant present in court and the second by the investigating officer who challaned the case, who challaned the present applicant along with others, these two versions require thorough probe by the trial Court. However, I am cognizant of the fact that, while deciding a Bail Application, only allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nature and gravity of the charge, other incriminating material against the accused, legal pleas raised by the accused and relevant law have to be considered. However, in the present case, the record reveals that the offense with which the accused/applicant has been charged is non-compoundable. However, in view of the statement of the complainant as recorded above, as well as his affidavit of no objection, the case of the applicant/accused calls for further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The record also shows that the applicant/accused is not a previous convict nor a hardened criminal. Moreover, he has been behind bars since his arrest and is no longer required for any investigation nor the prosecution has claimed any exceptional circumstance, that could justify keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period pending the determination of his guilt. Consequently, while taking into consideration the statement of the complainant before the Court and his affidavit, the applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail in crime No. 145 of 2024 of PS Steel Town subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Read more Matter:
BAIL BEFORE ARREST Advocates:Liaquat Ali(ADVO-14595-SBC-KHI),Javaid Ahmed(ADVO-4482-SBC-KHI),Shafique Ahmed(ADVO-2867-SBC-KHP),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-JUL-24
9) 942/2024 Cr.Bail ISMAIL S/O MOMIN KHAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal Pre Arrest Bail (Bail Confirmed), Criminal Pre Arrest Bail (Offence not falling with in prohibitory clause of section 497 (2))
Tag Line:
On the point of the defense version, as pleaded by the accused, is concerned, he submitted that this Court is not to make a probe into the defense version to advance a plea of bail, rather it has to assess tentatively the material produced before it and to see if reasonable ground exists to believe, prima facie involvement of accused in the commission of the offense and if the accused found connected with the commission of the offense, he will not be released on bail based on further inquiry. Per learned counsel, the applicants/Accused has failed to demonstrate mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police to falsely implicate him in this case. He next argued that so far as the plea of the applicant/accused Ismail that his extra-judicial confession was recorded in police custody, thus not admissible under Articles 38 & 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is concerned, the legal position in such a case is that if any incriminatory material related to the case is recovered or any fact is discovered in consequence of the information conveyed by the accused person, then the information so received would be admissible in evidence within the purview of Article 40 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 because then the presumption would be towards its truthfulness. Since the disclosure of the accused Ismail has been followed by the recovery of some stolen property as well as the discovery of new facts of selling the gold ornaments including the present applicant/accused Habibullah, which earlier was not known. He argued that Article 40, of Qanoon-e-Shahadat, provides that when any fact is revealed in consequence of information received from any accused in the custody of a police officer, such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. The information supplied by the applicant Ismail under Article 40 ibid relating to incriminating articles is admissible. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of Muhammad Akbar v The State 1995 SCMR 693, Murad Khan v Fazl-e-Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82, and copy of the charge-sheet, statements of ASI Shahbaz Ali and PC Humayoon Baig recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Read more Matter:
BAIL AFTER ARREST
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-JUL-24
10) 54/2024 Cr.Tran ADNAN S/O MUHAMMAD ALI (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Transfer Application (Vacant Court (Allowed))
Tag Line:
Primarily, Justice can be achieved only when the court deals in the presence of both parties and the court has the power to move cases from one court to another. But the rights of the parties cannot be curtailed, controlled, or interfered with subject to exceptions provided under the law. It is well-settled law that the transfer of a matter from one court to another could only be granted in exceptional circumstances, where it was shown that the same would be in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of All Pakistan Newspapers Society & Others vs. Federation of Pakistan & Others PLD 2012 Supreme Court 1.
5. Prima facie the ground raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is tenable based on the reason the trial court is lying vacant since long as such there is no progress in the trial of the applicant in that Court which amounts to keeping the accused behind the bar for indefinite period without trial; in such circumstances, he intends to seek a fair and speedy trial in the criminal case pending adjudication, which is only possible if he the trial court proceeds with the matter. However, in the best interest of justice, coupled with the instance taken by the learned special prosecutor, it would be appropriate for a speedy trial of the case. In such circumstances, judicial proprietary demand that Special Case No. 79 of 2022 arising out of FIR 26/2022 pending adjudication before the Court of CNS-II Clifton Karachi needs to be transferred to the Court of CNS-III for the smooth and speedy trial of the applicant.
Read more Matter:
TRANSFER OF CASE Advocates:Ali Wahid(ADVO-16298-SBC-KHS),Spl. Prosecutor Sindh (ANF)(SpPANF)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-JUL-24
11) 1235/2024 Cr.Bail ZAHOOR AHMED S/O UMER KHAN & 02 ORS (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (free fight between two rival groups), Criminal After Arrest Bail (Offence not falling under prohibitory caluse )
Tag Line:
The Supreme Court in similar circumstances has dealt with the issue involved in the present case. However, in the present case, the applicants have been charged with Section 337-F(III) i.e. Ghayrjaifah mutalimah. The punishment of Section 337-F(III) is daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to three years as ta???zir. So far as Section 337-F(V) Ghayrjaifah Hashmiya is daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to five years.
8. As far as section 324 PPC is concerned, in an attempt to murder case falling within the ambit of section 324, P.P.C., the nature of the act done, the intention of the offender and the circumstances leading to the occurrence are the essential ingredients, which need to be probed into determine the guilt or otherwise of an accused.
Read more Matter:
BAIL AFTER ARREST Advocates:Moula Bux Bhutto(ADVO-15386-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-JUL-24