KHALIQ DAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicants, who are facing trial under Section 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi West, after their post-arrest bail was dismissed. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the accusation, the statutory sentence of up to seven years rigorous imprisonment, the lack of eyewitnesses, and the nominal amount of alleged financial loss. The Sindh High Court held that considering the sentence prescribed, the minor value of the loss caused, and the absence of any eyewitnesses—coupled with the fact that the State did not oppose the bail plea—the application should be granted. The court established the principle that bail may be granted in cases punishable with up to seven years imprisonment where the evidence lacks eyewitness support, the loss is negligible, and the State does not oppose the relief, subject to appropriate surety bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the State does not oppose the application?
- Does the absence of eyewitnesses and a nominal amount of alleged loss constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in cases carrying a sentence of up to seven years?
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicants are facing trial for an offence under section 435, P.P.C. Before the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi West, who by his order dated 16-2-2003 has dismissed bail application of the applicants.
2. 'The applicants in the F.I.R. Are alleged to have set on fire the dowry articles received from his father-inlaw/complainant Muhammad Farooq, on account of dispute between his daughter and son-in-law.
3. ' It is mainly contended on behalf of the applicants that both of them are related as son and father inter se alongwith Mst. Shahnaz, mother of applicant Muhammad Zubair. That the offence is punishable upto seven years R.I. Only. In addition to the above, it is vehemently contended that the fire broke out due to some electric short-circuit and that there is no witness of the incident at all. It was lastly submitted that the loss which occurred due to alleged burning is shown to be about Rs,4000 to Rs .5000.
4. ' On the other hand Mr. Habib Rasheed. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, in view of the above, does not oppose the bail plea of the applicants.
5. ' Keeping in view the above, sentence prescribed for the alleged offence and the amount of loss allegedly caused, and in absence of any witness, bail application of the applicants is accepted.
6. Both the applicants are, therefore, granted bail subject to their furnishing solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.