SAFDAR ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 214 of 2004 registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Jaranwala, Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail based on a compromise with the complainant and the rule of consistency given that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the complainant's grievance had been redressed, the complainant had no objection to the bail, and a similarly situated co-accused had already been admitted to bail, the petitioners were entitled to bail under the principle of consistency. The court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted based on the principle of consistency when a co-accused has already been released on bail?
- Does the lack of interest in prosecution and compromise by the complainant form a sufficient ground for granting bail?
- Are petitioners entitled to bail when they are no longer required for further investigation and their case is at par with a co-accused?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,214 of 2004 dated 9-3-2004, for the offence under sections 419/420/467/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station, Jaranwala, Faisalabad, on the grounds that the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ghulam Sarwar, who has admittedly been granted bail by this Court, because the complainant of this case is no more interested in prosecution of the matter and he has no objection if the petitioners are granted bail.
2. ' Complainant, Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, identified by Muhammad Ashraf, who is present in Court states, that the land in dispute has already been transferred in his name, his grievance has been redressed and he is no more interested to prosecute the petitioners. Similarly he has no objection if the bail petition is allowed.
2. The petitioners are no more required for any further investigation, co-accused of the petitioners namely Ghulam SarwAr, has already been granted bail by this Court on 8-4-2005 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2119-B of 2005. The case of the petitioners is at par with the said co-accused.
3. Thus keeping in view the principle of consistency, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to there furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.
4. Bail after arrest granted.