MUHAMMAD YOUSIF and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by Muhammad Yousif and another, who were denied bail by the trial court in relation to Crime No. 121 of 2005, registered at Police Station Hala under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the rule of consistency. The applicants contended that co-accused facing similar allegations had been granted bail and that the allegations against them were general in nature, necessitating further inquiry. The High Court observed that the FIR contained general allegations against six nominated persons and that medical reports indicated no injuries were sustained on vital parts of the body. Holding that the case required further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants and applying the rule of consistency, the Court granted bail. The judgment affirms that where allegations are general and no vital injuries are sustained, the rule of consistency in bail matters is a significant factor supporting the release of accused persons pending trial.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to the grant of bail when co-accused facing similar allegations have been released?
- Is bail appropriate when the FIR contains only general allegations and medical reports show no injuries to vital parts of the body?
- Does a case involving general allegations against multiple accused require further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants for the purpose of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, J.---Being involved in Crime No,121 of 2005, Police Station, Hala under sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 504, 147, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C., they moved for grant of bail before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The bail plea of the applicants was not accepted by the learned trial Court and they were declined bail.
2. ' It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that co-accused Dhani Bux and Ali Hassan have been granted pre-arrest bail by the trial Court under similar circumstances; that the allegations against the applicants were of general nature and section 324, P.P.C. Has been misapplied by the police. According to him, the allegations against the applicants need further inquiry into their guilt and it has to be determined at the trial as to which of the accused caused specific injury to the injured persons.
3. ' Learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail to the applicants on the ground that their names appeared in the F.I.R.
4. ' As many as six persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. And there are allegations of general nature against them to have launched attack inflicted injuries to complainant party. The final medical certificate has been received by learned State counsel in respect of 5 injured persons which reflects that none of the injured sustained injury on vital part of the body. The case against the applicants- needs further inquiry into their guilt and keeping in view the rule of consistency they are entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.
5. ' The applicants Muhammad Yousif Bhatti and Haji Amir Bux are granted bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The bail application stands disposed of.