MUSHTAQ AHMED vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mushtaq Ahmed, in connection with F.I.R. No. 306 of 2002, registered under sections 334, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was involved in a cross-version case and had already suffered injuries, was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency, given that other co-accused had already been granted bail and the trial had not progressed. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle of consistency in bail matters, particularly in cross-version cases where the petitioner has also sustained injuries and the prosecution has failed to demonstrate significant progress in the trial. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, noting that his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, especially when other accused parties in the same incident had already been released on bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail?
- Does the existence of a cross-version case where the petitioner sustained injuries constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can the lack of progress in a criminal trial justify the grant of bail to an accused charged under the prohibitory clause?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is bail after-arrest in case F.I.R. No.306 of 2002 dated 29-8-2002 registered on the complaint of Nazar Muhammad under sections 334/337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca District, Lodhran.
2. According to the prosecution story narrated in the FIR. The petitioner armed with iron rod had inflicted injury on the person of complainant/injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact complainant party was aggressor and they caused six injuries including one head injury to the present petitioner and the complainant party was also implicated and a number of accused were nominated in the cross-version got recorded by petitioner's party. Further contends that all the accused of both the sides have already been bailed out, the iron rod recovered from the petitioner was not blood-stained and the petitioner is in jail for the last more than one year without any progress in trial and at the same time on the rule of consistency the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. Furthermore, the case of the petitioner is of cross-version as the petitioner himself suffered six injuries including one head injury. He relied on "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar ul Haq and others" (1996 SCM R 1845), "Muhammad Aslam v. State" (1997 SCM R 251) and "Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad and others"
(1976 SCM R 391).
4. On the other hand learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., case of the petitioner falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the case of the petitioner is of cross-version. All the accused of both the sides have been granted bail except the petitioner. Under the rule of consistency he is entitled to be bailed out. Furthermore, there is no progress in the trial so far hence, no useful purpose will be served by putting the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction IA of learned trial Court.