KHATTAN vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the lack of recovery, and the prolonged period of incarceration without the commencement of trial. The Court observed that the identification of numerous accused persons and their specific arms from a distance of one kilometer during an encounter was highly improbable. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay in reporting the incident and the absence of any recovery from the applicant. Relying on the rule of consistency, as co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail, and considering the principle of hardship due to the applicant's three-year detention without trial, the Court held that a case for bail was made out. The Court granted bail, establishing that where co-accused are granted bail on similar facts, the rule of consistency applies, and prolonged pre-trial detention without evidence being recorded constitutes sufficient grounds for relief.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused in the same F.I.R. have already been granted bail?
- Can the unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. be considered a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial constitute a valid ground for bail under the principle of hardship?
ORDER
' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---This application has already become infructuous, therefore, dismissed.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. No,30 of 2002 of Police Station Bahoo Khoso is almost a blind F.I.R. As wild allegations have been levelled against the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to them. He has further submitted that no recovery has been effected from any accused and that it is impossible for the police officials to identify the accused persons from a distance of one Kilometer as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Nor with the distance they could identify arms and ammunition. He has further submitted that alleged incident occurred at 0930 hours but report has been made at 1530 hours i.e,, after considerable delay which is not expected from the police officials. He further submitted that co-accused in the F.I.R., namely, Illahi Bakhsh alias Bhallo and Shah Jehan have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,517 of 2005 as the learned State Counsel gave no objection in that case. He argued that rule of consistency, in the circumstances, may be applied as the case of the applicant is similar to that of the accused who have been granted bail. He further submits that principle of hardship is also attracted as the accused is behind the bars for the last three years, as the applicant was arrested on 23-12-2003.
' The learned State counsel has no objection on the ground that applicant may be granted bail on the basis of rule of consistency and that the delay was there.
' After hearing I have observed that it is strange as to how the police has identified numerous persons while they were at police encounter and that too from a distance and further the arms have also been identified, which is not an easy job from a distance. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is also there. It may also be noted down that no recovery has been effected in spite the allegation of involvement of several armed persons and that the accused is behind the bars for the last more than three years and the evidence has not started as yet. The rule of consistency is also applicable keeping in view the by this Court to two accused Illahi Bakhsh and Shah Jehan. In the circumstances, the accused is also admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.