Pakistan Case Law
2007 MLD 303

MUHAMMAD SHABBIR alias MITHO and anothers vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 MLD 303
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No,S-566 of 2006
Date2006-11-03
Judge(s)Muhammad Moosa K. Laghari
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the High Court upon a bail application filed by the applicants Muhammad Shabbir alias Mitho and Mehmood seeking post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry and the rule of consistency, given that co-accused have already been granted bail, one applicant's name does not appear in the First Information Report, and the other is attributed a role of possessing a lathi. The court held that the case of the applicants calls for further inquiry as the name of one applicant is missing from the F.I.R. and the other is only alleged to be possessing a lathi, leading to the non-opposition by the State Counsel. Consequently, the court admitted the applicants to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing required surety bonds, laying down the principle that bail may be granted when an accused's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused whose name does not transpire in the First Information Report is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does possession of a lathi/danda in the circumstances of the case make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have already been granted bail by the court?
post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail application

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---Bail plea of the applicant is pressed on the rule of consistency.

2. It is stated that co-accused have been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 14-6-2006 and 3-8-2006, the name of Muhammad Shabbir does not transpire in the F.I.R., whereas the rule assigned to applicant Mehmood is of having a Danda.

3. ' In view of the above facts learned State Counsel has not opposed the grant of bail.

4. ' On perusal of the F.I.R. It transpires that name of applicant Muhammad Shabbir does not, appear in the F.I.R. And that applicant Mehmood along with other co-accused is alleged to be possessing a lathi. Case of applicants, therefore, calls for further inquiry.

5. ' Accordingly, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) each and P:R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.