Pakistan Case Law
2000 P Cr. L J 1591

ABDUL KARIM BALOCH vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 P Cr. L J 1591
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No,55 of 1999
Date1999-01-18
Judge(s)Rasheed A. Rizvi
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon a post-arrest bail application filed by Abdul Karim Baloch, who stands accused of offences under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question concerns whether the accused is entitled to bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that since the offences carry maximum punishments of three and seven years respectively, and thus do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the application should be granted. The key principle laid down is that bail is to be granted as a general rule in cases where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether offences punishable under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 fall within the prohibitory clause?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 5(ii), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailillegal gratificationcorruptionprohibitory clausecriminal procedure

ORDER

1. ' Accused is involved in the offence under section 161, P.P.C. Which is punishable with the imprisonment of three years and in offence under section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, where maximum punishment provided is seven years.

2. ' I have heard Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for the accused and Mr. S. Mamnoonul Hassan, Dy. A.-G.

3. For the State. There is only allegation that accused demanded Rs,5,000 (Rupees five thousand) for which he received Rs,1,000 (Rupees one thousand) as illegal gratification and remaining was promised to be paid. Subsequently, as a result of a trap, the present accused was arrested. It is argued that the raid conducted was not in accordance with law. Be that as it may, since the alleged offences does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This application is accepted and accused shall be released on bail in this case, upon furnishing one solvent surety of Rs,1,00,000 with P.R. Bond of like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.