AAMIR vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from F.I.R. No. 202 of 2004, registered at Police Station Market, Hyderabad, under sections 322, 337-J, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant, a licensed seller of ordinary spirit, was accused of selling poisonous spirit that resulted in the deaths of several individuals. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, particularly in light of the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing identical allegations had previously been granted bail by the High Court. The applicant argued that the offence under section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is punishable by Diyat and thus falls outside the prohibitory clause, and that section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was inapplicable due to a lack of intent. The Court, noting the State's concession and the fact that a co-accused with a similar role had already been enlarged on bail, held that the applicant should be granted bail on the principle of consistency. The Court accordingly ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing surety.
- Does the principle of consistency entitle an accused to bail when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Is an offence punishable by Diyat considered outside the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ZIA PERWAZ, J.--- The applicant is involved in crime/F.I.R. No,202 of 2004, registered against him under sections 322, 337-J and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Market, Hyderabad, seeks bail.
2. ' The allegation against the present applicant/accused in the F.I.R. Is that he is licence-holder for the sale of ordinary spirit and he had sold poisonous spirit, which after drinking several persons died.
3. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that section 322, P.P.C. Is punishable by Diyat as such it does not fall within prohibitory clause and that the provisions of section 337-J, P.P.C.
4. Are not attracted in the present case as there was no intention on the part of A the present applicant to cause death of any person. Learned counsel submits that the co-accused Irfan who has been assigned similar role in the F.I.R. Has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. He has produced certified copy of order, dated 21-12-2004, passed by this Court whereby granted bail to co-accused Irfan and pray for grant of bail to the present applicant/'accused on the ground of consistency.
5. ' Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, learned State Counsel conceded to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and states his no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the principle of consistency.
6. ' Under the circumstances, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- SALMAN KHAN Versus State 2022 SCMR 515
- Israr Hussain Shah vs The State & 2 others 2020 P Cr. L J 1164, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1042, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 748,
- ZIA-UR-REHMAN vs The STATE 2018 YLR 1810