QURBAN ALI vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 118 registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahuka Burewala, District Vehari, concerning an incident of dacoity. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of delayed FIR registration, non-nomination in the FIR, and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner made out a case for bail, noting the delay in the FIR, his subsequent nomination, and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail, establishing the rule of consistency. The court laid down the principle that an accused person cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when co-accused similarly situated have been granted bail and further detention serves no useful purpose.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Does a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR furnish grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused person be kept behind bars for an indefinite period pending trial?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 118 dated 27.5.2005 registered under Sections 395 & 412 PPC at P.S. Sahuka Burewala District, Vehari.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the night of 19.5.2002 six unknown persons committed dacoity in the house of Muhammad Hanif and took away various articles and Wagon No, 6055/MNO. Later on the petitioner Qurban Ali was allegedly involved in this case on the statement of the complainant.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR but later on he.was involved in this case on the statement of the complainant; that there is a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR; that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Sattar, Munir and Akhtar have been allowed bail, as such the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency and that the petitioner was arrested on 16.8.2004 and since then he is in jail.
3.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
4.Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Actually the petitioner was not named in the. FIR but later on he was involved on the statement of the complainant. There is a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Sattar, Munir and Akhtar have been allowed bail as such, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bait on the rule of consistency. The petitioner was arrested on 16.8.2004 and since then he is in jail. No useful purpose will be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period.
6. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one ac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.