IRSHAD and anothers vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicants, Irshad and Zafar Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of causing injuries with firearms and a hatchet. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of consistency when medical evidence contradicted the oral allegations and co-accused similarly situated had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the medical evidence failed to support the firearm and hatchet injuries attributed to the applicants, and following the rule of consistency established by the earlier grant of bail to co-accused, the application should be allowed. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations are granted bail, particularly where ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is a conflict between medical and oral evidence?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
ORDER
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---This is a case of injury in which it is alleged that on 27-9-2004 at 5- 00 p.m. The applicant Irshad armed with gun and applicant Zafar Ali armed with hatchet caused injuries to the complainant party. It is further alleged that the other accused persons who were armed with guns fired at the injured person whereas applicant Zafar Ali had caused sharp side of hatchet injury on the person of Sono Khan. The medical evidence does not support the said allegations as the injured had no Are-arm injury on his person nor injured Sono Khan has any sharp side hatchet injury. In the similar circumstances, this Court granted bail to co-accused Manzoor Ali, Bakhshal and Ghulam Mustafa on the ground of conflict between medical and oral evidence. The rule of consistency requires that the applicants should also be granted bail.
2. ' In the circumstances of the case bail is granted to the applicants in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The application is allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDULLAH JAN Versus State 2019 YLRN 107