NABI BUX and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two bail applications seeking post-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 9 of 2004 registered at Police Station Rukkan. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, given that the applicants are not nominated in the F.I.R., no recoveries were made from them, and their implication rests on an inadmissible statement of a co-accused before the police. The Sindh High Court held that the applications are to be allowed as the State counsel conceded that the applicants' case is identical to that of the previously enlarged co-accused. The key principle laid down is that accused persons whose cases are identical to a co-accused already granted bail are entitled to the grant of bail on the rule of consistency.
- Are accused persons whose case is identical to a co-accused already released on bail entitled to bail under the rule of consistency?
- Does implication in a crime solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement before the police make out a case for further inquiry?
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no recovery has been effected from the accused and they are no longer required for investigation?
ORDER
1. ' By this order 1 propose to dispose of both the above numbered bail applications as they arise out of same crime number 9 of 2004, Police Station Rukkan.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that Ali Akbar son of Muhammad Ibrahim, another accused of the same crime has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 24-5- 2004, passed in Criminal Bail Application No.332 of 2004. They submit that the case of present applicants is identical to the case of applicant Ali Akbar as they are also not nominated accused in the F.I.R., no recovery has been effected from them, applicant Nabi Bux was arrested on 4-3-2004 while applicant Muhammad Khan was arrested on 8-3-2004 and after submission of challan they are no more required in the crime for investigation. They further submit that applicants have been implicated in the crime only on the basis of statement of co-accused before police which is inadmissible in evidence, therefore, case. Of applicants need further inquiry which entitle them for grant of bail.
3. ' Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, learned State Counsel frankly conceded that the case of present applicants is identical to that of applicant Ali Akbar, therefore, they are entitled for grant of bail on the rule of consistency.
4. ' In view of the above and by consent these two bail applications are allowed. The applicants are admitted to bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lacs) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.