IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

            Crl. Bail. Appln. No.S-909 of 2025                       

       

                   

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

 

                                       For hearing of pre-arrest bail.      

         

 

30.10.2025

 

Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Qazi, Advocate for applicant.

 

Mr. Muhammad Aslam Gadani, Advocate for complainant.

 

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

 

                                            ************

 

 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

         

 

          The  applicant Abdul Ghani Ludhar seeks bail wherein allegations in the FIR bearing Crime No.34 of 2025 police Station, Andal Sundrani u/s  452, 114, 324, 504, 148, 149 PPC has been made against him that being member of unlawful assembly which has caused hurt to two minors.

 

          Learned counsel for the applicant contends that Seven days delay without any explanation is present although the concerned Police Station is about two furlongs away from the place of incident. He further contends that the allegation against the present applicant is only of abatement and instigation wherein circumstances do not require applicability of Section 109 and Section 114 PPC is applicable. He further contends that the applicant is a visually impaired person. He relied upon case reported in 2018 P.Crl.LJ 1347.

 

 

          Learned counsel for complainant however, contends that heinous offence of firing on minor is present to which the applicant was the prime person to lead the assembly wherein the allegations are against the children of the applicant.  

 

          Learned Deputy Prosecutor General contends that the instigation against the present applicant is caused firing whereas motive is present and no explanation of the incident having occurred is shown disconnecting the present applicant and as such bail before arrest is not available as applicant has not been able to make out a case of further inquiry.

 

          Learned counsel for the applicant in rebuttal contends that the applicant has joined the trial.

 

Having heard the counsels and gone through the record. Indeed, the heinous offence of firing at children of young age is present to which there is no dispute however, it is observed that the applicant is said to be empty handed at the time of the incident and his role is limited to instigation of the persons who have caused the overt actions of the incident. In the said circumstances, the occurrence may not be in dispute however, it seems that the applicant in knowledge of visual impairment of the applicant had specifically stated in the FIR that the applicant was empty handed and in the said circumstances roping of the present applicant who is father of the main accused in the matter to the role of being abettor and the person causing instigation as  the case may be is to be brought-up in the trial and in the said circumstances in order to ensure that the applicant proceeds with the trial with the variation of enhancement of bail amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.100,000/- Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the order dated 25.09.2025 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

 

 

         

          Needless to mention here that observation as above are tentative in nature and not meant to affect merits of the case before the learned trial Court.

 

Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

 

                                                                                         J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ihsan/PS.