Rasheed vs The State
The petitioner Rasheed sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 33 of 2003 registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(iv), 337-L(ii), 337-H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the basis of the rule of consistency, given that co-accused with identical roles had already been granted bail, and whether the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner's role was identical to co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail, and the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail as a rule, with refusal being an exception. The petition was consequently allowed subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Does a petitioner become entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency if co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
- Is bail granted as a rule and refused as an exception when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J. - The petitioner Rasheed son of Abdul Haq seeks post arrest bail in case bearing FIR No. 33 of 2003, dated 16.2.2003 offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(iv), 337- L(ii), 337-H(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C., registered af Police Station, Sadar, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. According to the allegations as per FIR are that on 14.2.2003. Salamat, Majeed Rasheed, Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif who were armed with hatchet, Muhammad Hanif armed with pistol 30 bore. Muhammad Afzal armed with iron rod. Rafaqat, Shehbaz alias Naajam and Muhammad Riaz armed with sotas alongwith three unknown persons who were empty handed caused injuries to Munir Ahmed, Bashir Ahmad. Shabhir Ahmad, Mukhtiar and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that role of the petitioner is identical to that of Muhammad * Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif and both of them were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 12.7.2005. Therefore, according to the Rule of Consistency, the petitioner also deserves to the grant of bail. Further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of general nature and no specific injury was attributed to them, it is submitted that none of the offences fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the hail application.
4.. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Out of 11 persons who were nominated as accused, role of three persons i.e. Petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif are identical out of whom. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 12.07.2003,, therefore,, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is also allowed bail. As the offences so charged do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause and in such like cases as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court of Pakistan grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 is respectfully relied upon. The petitioner was arrested on 3.12.2004 an<5 is no more required by the police for further investigation. The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and needs further enquiry.
3. Under these circumstances, this application is allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. . '