BASHIR AHMAD vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, in connection with FIR No. 178 of 2005, registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Makhdoom Rashid, Multan, involving allegations of robbery. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency, given that co-accused persons facing identical allegations had already been granted bail by the Court. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the petitioner's role was indistinguishable from that of his co-accused, Shabbir Ahmad and Fayyaz Hussain, who had previously been enlarged on bail. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief. The Court allowed the petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is the rule of consistency in criminal jurisprudence, which dictates that an accused is entitled to bail when their role is identical to that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if their role is identical to a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications in criminal cases?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No, 178 dated 22.7,2005 under Sections 392, 411, P.P.C. at Police Station Makhdoom Rashid District Multan.
2. As per FIR, four unknown persons (fully described) deprived the complainant of his Motorcycle, cash of Rs, 1100/-, Service--Card, National Identity Card on pistol point.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this is the second petition for bail as the first bail application of the petitioner i,e, Crl. Misc. No, 2853-B/2006 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the learned trial Court to take all steps to conclude the trial within six weeks, failing which the petitioner was given the right to file a fresh bail application before the learned trial Court; that the trial is still pending. Moreover, Shabbir Ahmad, co-accused, has been allowed bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No, 1270-B/2006.
4. On the other hand, bail petition has been opposed on the grounds that the trial is in progress and; that the recovery has been effected.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The role of the petitioner is identical to that of his co-accused Shabbir Ahmad who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.9.2006 passed in Crl. Misc. No, 1270-B/2006. Likewise, Fayyaz Hussain, co-accused has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.1.2007 passed in Crl. Misc. No, 3207-B/2006. Keeping in view the rule of consistency the petitioner having the same role, is also entitled for the grant of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.