ZAFAR ALI LASHARI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zafar Ali Lashari, who is facing trial before the Sessions Judge, Dadu, for his alleged involvement in an incident occurring on 26-4-2001. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his co-accused intercepted three individuals and, during the encounter, a co-accused fired a shot causing injury. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the doctrine of consistency, given that a co-accused, who was allegedly armed with a rifle and attributed with ineffective firing, had already been granted bail by the High Court. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was registered with a significant delay of two months and that the applicant was only alleged to be present with a danda (stick) without using it. Holding that the applicant's case was on a better footing than the co-accused who had already been released, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that parity in treatment must be extended to co-accused persons when their roles are similar or less culpable.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused with a more serious role has already been granted bail?
- Does a significant delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute a ground for considering bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the allegation against them is limited to mere presence at the crime scene without the use of a weapon?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The prosecution case is that on 26-4-2001 at about 2-30 a.m. Ghulam Rasool, Misri and Farooq Ali Jamali were returning from Makhdoom Bilawal after listening religious sermons. They were intercepted by three armed culprits at Choudagi. On torch light the P.Ws. identified the culprits as Dildar Ali with rifle, Peeral Jamali with shotgun and Zafar Ali with Lathi. Armed culprits directed them to switch off the torch and hand over whatever was with them. Misri replied that they had nothing to deliver. On that Peeral Jamali fired at him. Misri received the fire on his lumber region and fell down.
2. None reported the incident to police. However Dildar lodged the F.I.R. against Misri which was found false in the result of investigation. On 4-7-2001 F.I.R. of present case was registered at Johi Police Station.
3. Presently the case is. pending trial before Sessions Judge Dadu. Bail plea of Dildar and Zafar was turned down by the learned trial Court whereafter Dildar was granted bail by this Court. Zafar seeks bail through this bail application.
4. Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that his client is entitled to bail in view of doctrine of consistency. According to him the case of Zafar is better than the case of Dildar as ineffective fires were attributed to Dildar whereas Zafar is alleged to be present only.
5. Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, learned State Counsel concedes to the bail plea stating that the applicant is entitled to the bail in view of the principle of consistency.
6. The F.I.R. of this case was registered two months after the incident. The role attributed to applicant is only of presence with Danda. He is not alleged to have used the weapon with him. His co- accused Dildar allegedly armed with rifle has already been released on bail. In the circumstances the applicant too has a case for bail. Bail granted. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.