Cr.Bail 318/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana

Sindh High Court · 2025 · Before Khalid Hussain Shahani

Through this common order, the applicant, Hubdar Ali, seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.121 of 2025, registered under Sections 401, 324, 353, and 34, PPC, and in Crime No.122 of 2025, registered under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, both at Police Station Kamber City. His earlier bail pleas were declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber Shahadkot, vide orders dated 06.05.2025 and 18.04.2025, respectively.

2. As per the prosecution’s version, on 02.04.2025, a police party headed by ASI Suhnal, acting on prior spy information regarding the presence of the applicant and his associates, allegedly involved in Crime Nos. 123 and 119 of 2025, proceeded to Sobdar Laro, Kamber Road. Upon arrival, they allegedly observed three armed individuals, including the present applicant, who is said to have opened fire upon the police party. The police retaliated, and after the exchange of fire, the applicant was found injured with a 30-bore pistol lying nearby. The remaining co-accused reportedly managed to escape. Memo of arrest and recovery was prepared at the spot, and the FIR was registered accordingly. Subsequently, a separate case under the Sindh Arms Act was also lodged. 2

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the entire prosecution story is managed, fabricated, and suffers from serious contradictions. It is submitted that no police official sustained any injury, nor was any official vehicle hit during the alleged encounter. The recovery is alleged to be planted, and the encounter appears to be stage-managed, purportedly orchestrated by police to show efficiency and valor to superiors. It is further argued that the investigation has been completed, challan submitted, and the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was apprehended red-handed with an unlicensed weapon. However reluntantly cenceded that occular accont was belied by medical evidence.

5. Admittedly, no injury was received by any member of the police party, nor was any police vehicle struck by a bullet, despite allegations of a direct armed encounter. Notably, the FIR does not reflect the presence or joining of any private, independent witness despite the fact that prior spy information was available. This omission constitutes a clear violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C. Additionally, the FIR is silent as to whether the applicant uttered any words or made any exclamation upon sustaining a firearm injury, which would reasonably be expected if the encounter was genuine and occurred at close range, as alleged.

6. A cursory examination of the medico-legal certificate reveals that the injuries sustained by the applicant include: (i) an incised wound measuring 2 cm × 0.75 cm, skin-deep, on the lower back of the right leg, and (ii) a linear incised (zigzag) wound measuring 4 cm × 0.25 cm, skin-deep, parallel to the first injury. The medical officer has opined that the injuries were inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon and self-infliction cannot be ruled out. This medical account prima facie contradicts the narrative of a firearm injury resulting 3 from police firing and raises serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s version.

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…