KHURRUM SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Khurrum Shahzad, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station (A) Division, Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail by the High Court. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the case against the petitioner was neither dissimilar nor distinguishable from the case against the co-accused, Asim alias Chhura, who had previously been admitted to bail. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner should be treated in the same manner as the co-accused to ensure judicial consistency. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail if a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted the same relief?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to bail applications where the case against the petitioner is indistinguishable from that of a co-accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Through this petition Khurum Shahzad petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.203 registered at Police Station (A) Division, Sheikhupura on 17-3-2006 in respect of offences under sections 302/ 34/109, P.P.C.
2. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Asim alias Chhura has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 20-10-2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8360-B of 2006. It is not disputed that the case against the present petitioner is not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against the said co-accused. There is, thus, no reason why the present petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is submitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.