SAKHAWAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by applicant Sakhawat seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 436, 435, 353, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to allegations of setting a petrol pump on fire, causing property damage, firing at police family quarters, and throwing explosive materials. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of complete identification particulars in the challan, absence of recovery or identification, and parity of his case with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, noting that the challan lacked parentage, age, occupation, or address, there was no evidence of recovery or identification, and the state conceded the matter based on the principle of consistency with the co-accused. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's particulars are missing from the challan, no recovery or identification exists, and a similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail, the accused qualifies for the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of parentage, age, occupation, and address in the police challan provide grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of a belated arrest when no proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were given effect?
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- Applicant Sakhawat seeks bail in a case under sections 436, 435, 353, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. (F.I.R. No,376 of 1998 of Police Station Liaquatabad) pending trial before the Court of learned lInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Central Karachi.
2. ' The applicant along with 14 'other accused is alleged to have caused tire to the petrol pump and losses to the property and also tired at the family quarters of the police officers besides throwing explosive material threat.
3. ' The applicant has been arrested about two and half months back and was sent up to Court through supplementary challan.
4. ' The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant .Did not abscond and he is not the actual person who has been shown as accused in the case. He further contended that neither the applicant's parentage nor caste or address or even occupation is shown in the challan and his name does not appear in the F.I.R. He next contended that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of Shakeel who has been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Altaf alias Guddu v. State (1997 Cr.LJ. 505).
5. The learned A.A.-G. Has stated that the case of the present applicant is at par with the case of co- accused Shakeel who has been granted bail. He therefore, concedes to the-grant of bail to the applicant.
6. ' On perusal of the certified copy of the challan we find that only name of the applicant is mentioned. Neither his parentage nor age, occupation or address are shown. Besides this, there is no evidence relating to the recovery or identification. More fact of his belated crest, in the circumstances would not disentitle him to the concession of bail. There is nothing on record to show that proceedings under sections 87, 88 were given effect.
7. ' Accordingly, we allow bail to the applicant subject to his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs, one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.