AKHUND JAWAID AKHTAR SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail filed by the accused in relation to Crime No. 15 of 2005, registered at Police Station Sekhat under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(ii), 504, 506(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail based on the rule of consistency, given that co-accused had already been granted bail and the applicant had not misused the concession of interim bail previously granted. The Court observed that the challan had been submitted, the applicant had been cooperating with the investigation, and the State counsel had no objection to the confirmation, noting that the applicant was initially placed in column No. II of the challan sheet. The Court held that the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused have been granted bail and the applicant has not misused the concession of interim bail, the rule of consistency supports the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Does the lack of misuse of interim bail concession justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the State counsel has no objection?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--- The applicant/accused has submitted application under section 498, Cr.P.C. For grant of pre-arrest bail in Crime No,15 of 2005, registered in Police Station Sekhat under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(ii), 504, 506(2), 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Learned Advocate for the applicant argued that all the co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail and on the rule of consistency the applicant is also entitled for the grant of pre-arrest bail. It is further contended that after grant of interim pre-arrest bail by this Court on 17-10-2005, till date the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and is regularly attending the learned trial Court.
3. The challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and the charge is likely to be framed in near future. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the applicant that applicant has not misused the concession extended by this Court and entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail and the offence is punishable not for more than three years.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State counsel stated that the bail to the co-accused has been granted bail by the learned trial Court on the ground that the complainant and the injured person has given his consent whereas in the first instance the applicant/accused has been shown in column No,II in the challan sheet therefore, apparently for this reason the learned State counsel has no objection to the confirmation of the interim pre-arrest to the applicant.
5. ' Hard the learned counsel and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the record it appears that challan in the matter has already been submitted and the charge is likely to be framed in near future. The applicant has been granted interim pre- arrest bail by this Court on 17-10-2005 and till date he has not misused the said concession and is regularly attending the trial Court. The co-accused has been granted bail by the learned trial Court on the statements of complainant and the injured person.
7. ' In view of the above the interim pre-arrest to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
8. ' Disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- AMAN alias AMU alias AMANULLAH and another vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 1778