SULEMAN vs THE STATE
This bail application was filed by the applicant, Suleman, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 66 of 2000, registered at Police Station Dadu, for offences under sections 324, 353, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case and the principle of consistency. The Court observed that the prosecution alleged ineffective firing during a police raid, with no injuries sustained by any party. Furthermore, the Court noted that co-accused persons facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. Additionally, the applicant had previously been acquitted by the trial court in a related case under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. Applying the rule of consistency and finding that the applicant's case required further inquiry, the Court allowed the bail application. The judgment affirms that where co-accused similarly situated have been granted bail, the principle of consistency dictates that the applicant should also be granted bail, provided the case warrants further investigation.
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused persons in the same case have already been granted bail?
- Is the absence of injuries in an alleged firing incident a relevant factor for the grant of bail?
- Does an acquittal in a related case involving the same accused entitle the accused to further inquiry in a pending criminal matter?
- Section 324, 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 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. ' ATA-UR-REHMAN, J.---This bail application has been filed by the applicant Suleman son of Peeral who is involved in Crime No,66 of 2000 of Police Station, Dadu, under sections 324, 353, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' The facts of the case are narrated in the F.I.R. And also in the impugned order in brief the police party when raided house of the accused for recovery of narcotics. They were attacked by persons present over there including present applicant. However, it is admitted that no one was injured in the incident. It was ineffective firing by persons present on the spot. Other cd-accused almost on the similar grounds has been released on bail. In the same case co-accused Muhammad Azim, Haji Nooruddin and Haji Abdul Ghafoor were allowed bail by this Court in Criminal Bail No,257 of 2000. The learned counsel referred to the judgment dated 31-5-2000 passed in Criminal Case No,24 of 2000 (The State v. Suleman under section 13-D in Crime No,68 of 2000). By this judgment, the applicant has been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal has been preferred against this order. Keeping in view the rule of consistency and in view of the fact that there was allegedly ineffective firing and the applicant has been acquitted by the trial Court under section 13-D, the case of the accused requires further enquiry.
3. ' The applicant is allowed bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- NADIR ABBAS vs The STATE 2019 MLD 1980
- ASIF ALI ZANGEJO JATOI vs The STATE 2017 MLD 46
- ASIF ZANGEJO JATOI vs THE STATE PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 308
- SHARIFUDDIN vs The STATE 2015 YLR 1791
- ADEEL vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 725