Order Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1273 Of 2025
Kainat Khan W/o Azhar Khan
Vs.
The State
Applicant : Through Mr. Aroon Parsad, advocate.
Respondent : Through Ms. Rabia Saqib, A.P.G.
Complainant : Through Mr. Jamil Ahmed Javed, advocate.
Date of hearing & order 20.04.2026.
O R D E R
ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, J: Through instant bail application, the applicant/accused namely Kainat Khan wife of Azhar Khan seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.1151/2024 under Section 302, 34 PPC (Sections 109, 201, 202, 420 PPC were inserted in challan) registered at P.S. KIA, Karachi. Her earlier Bail Application No.6046 of 2024 was heard and dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Karachi-East vide order dated 02.01.2025.
2. Facts of the case need not to be reiterated here as the same have already been stated in the FIR and bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motives. He further submitted that this is case of blind murder as there is no eye witness of the incident. He also submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant / accused and no solid / substantial evidence is available against the applicant / accused, which makes the case of further inquiry. He further contended that applicant / accused was arrested on the basis of CDR, which has no evidentiary value in absence of concrete material. He also contended that the applicant / accused is behind the bars for more than two years and she is not required for further investigation. He further contended that the applicant / accused is not harden, desperate or habitual criminal. He has relied upon the cases reported in 2022 SCMR 1954, 1996 SCMR 973, 2023 SCMR 383, 2007 YLR 2223, 2017 MLD 416, 2014 P.Cr.L.J. 1430 and 2007 P.Cr.L.J. 1657.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General as well as counsel for complainant while opposing the grant of bail to the applicant submitted that sufficient material is available on record which connects her in crime. It is further contended that the applicant / accused is involved in a heinous offence of murder, as such, she is not entitled to the concession of bail in the present case. They lastly prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned APG and counsel for complainant as well as perused the material available on the record.
6. It is admitted position that the murder of deceased was unseen and blind murder and the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. No direct evidence is available on record and the case of the prosecution is only based upon circumstantial evidence and not a single evidence regarding commission of murder of deceased is available, which could connect the applicant / accused in the instant crime. Aapplicant / accused was arrested on the basis of CDR, which is not supported and corroborated with concrete material, as such, same has no evidentiary value. Reference can be made to the case of Naveed Sattar v. The State and others [2024 SCMR 205] wherein it has been observed that :-
“So far as the Call Data Record (CDR) is concerned, this court in a number of cases has held that in absence of any concrete material the CDR is not a conclusive piece of evidence to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused”.
7. It may be observed that the offence with which the applicant / accused stands charged for Sections 302/34 PPC is yet to be determined by the trial Court. Although the applicant / accused was found involved during Police investigation but it is settled law that ipsi dixit of the Police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused could not be depended upon as the same would be determined by Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record. In the circumstances and keeping in view the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tanveer v. The State [PLD 2017 SC 733], the case against the applicant needs to be looked into by the trial Court on the allegations leveled against her by the prosecution as prima facie the entire case of the applicant / accused is based on circumstantial evidence as no eyewitness has been cited in the case who might have seen the alleged offense occurred at the hands of the applicant / accused.
8. The record also shows that the applicant/accused is neither previous convict nor hardened criminal and is in continuous custody since her arrest and is no more required for any investigation nor the prosecution has claimed any exceptional circumstance, which could justify keeping her behind the bars for an indefinite period pending determination of her guilt. Furthermore, the co-accused Ghulam Muhammad has already been granted bail by this Court, as such, rule of consistency is also attracting in the present case.
9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that prima facie, the applicant/accused has succeeded to bring her case within the purview of further inquiry and as such is entitled to bail and for this reason, the applicant/accused was admitted to bail subject to her furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, by my short order dated 20.04.2026.
Needless to mention here that any observation made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not affect the determination of the facts at the trial or influence the trial Court in reaching its decision on the merits of the case. It is, however, made clear that in the event if, during proceedings, the applicant/accused misuses the bail, then the trial court would be competent to cancel her bail without making any reference to this Court.
Above are the reasons of my short order dated 20.04.2026.
JUDGE
Naveed PA