ALI GOHAR and 5 others vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through an application seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused persons facing similar allegations have already been granted post-arrest bail which was not challenged by the prosecution. The Court held that since the role assigned to the applicants is identical to that of the co-accused who were admitted to bail, and keeping in view that a person entitled to post-arrest bail should not be refused pre-arrest bail to avoid empty formalities, the interim pre-arrest bail is liable to be confirmed. The key principle laid down is the rule of consistency in bail matters, wherein similarly placed accused persons ought to receive similar treatment, and that pre-arrest bail should not be arbitrarily recalled when the accused would ultimately be entitled to post-arrest bail upon surrender.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail?
- Should pre-arrest bail be confirmed when recalling it would serve no useful purpose because the accused would immediately be entitled to post-arrest bail upon surrender?
- Does the lack of challenge by the prosecution against bail granted to co-accused support the extension of similar concessions to remaining applicants?
ORDER
1. ' DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.--- Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicants by this Court on 15-1-2008 and thereafter they are appearing before learned trial Court regularly without fail. He submits that other co-accused persons, namely, Mian Amanullah, Umar, Liaquat, Bahazur alias Bahadur and Mano alias Munawar were also on interim pre-arrest bail granted by learned trial Court which was subsequently recalled and the applicants were arrested and after their arrest they were granted post-arrest bail by learned trial Court vide order, dated 10-12-2007. The after arrest bail granting order was not challenged by the prosecution or by the complainant. The certified copy of the said bail order is kept on the record. He further submits that if the applicant is entitled for bail after arrest, his interim pre-arrest bail may not be dismissed or recalled but he also be given concession by confirming interim pre-arrest bail as no useful purpose would be served when his pre-arrest bail is recalled and after his arrest bail is granted. He further submits that the co-accused persons who have been granted bail, the case of the applicants is on the same footings and they also deserve for the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. He relied upon cases of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCM R 1380 and Muhammad Afzal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 SCM R 9 and submits that they are also entitled for the grant of bail in the circumstances.
2. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has no objection for the confirmation of bail on the principle of consistency.
3. I have perused the material in the case file and gone through the case-laws. It appears from the record that the role assigned to the applicants is not different to the role attributed to the co- accused. I agree with the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General that on the principle of consistency, the applicants are also entitled for the grant of bail. The cases of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (supra) and Muhammad Afzal alias Bodi v. The State (supra) also attract and applicable that a person who is entitled for the grant of after arrest bail, the pre-arrest bail may not be refused.
4. ' In view of above discussion and parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions. They are directed to attend the trial Court regularly and in case they are required for investigation by the police, they may also cooperate with the Investigating Officer, if so required by him.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mst. AMNA BIBI vs STATE and another PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 104
- MUHAMMADUDDIN and another vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 1388
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 430
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2684