MUHAMMAD DAUD and another vs THE STATE and another

This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, regarding the denial of bail to the petitioners. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail based on the principle of consistency, given that co-accused persons in the same case had already been granted bail by the Court. Upon reviewing the circumstances and noting that a co-accused, Jamil Ahmad, and others had previously been admitted to bail by the Supreme Court in related proceedings, the Court applied the rule of consistency. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the petitions, converting them into appeals, and admitted the petitioners to bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused persons have been granted bail in the same criminal case, the rule of consistency dictates that other similarly situated accused persons should also be granted the same relief, provided there is no distinguishing factor warranting a different outcome.