MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 232 dated 24-8-2005 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kassoke, Hafizabad, concerning allegations of preparing forged National Identity Cards. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency given that co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail by the superior courts. The court holds that since a co-accused was granted bail by the Supreme Court and another co-accused was admitted to bail by the High Court, the petitioner stands on an equal or better footing and is entitled to the same relief. The holding establishes that the principle of consistency must be applied in criminal matters where co-accused similarly placed have been granted bail.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing similar charges have already been granted bail?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused by the Supreme Court create a valid ground for releasing another co-accused on bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,232 of 2005, dated 24-8-2005, registered under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. At Police Station, Kassoke, Hafizabad, on the complaint of Nisar Ali, Inspector, Investigation, Hafizabad.
2. The brief allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. Are that on 24-8-2005 at about 9-30 a.m. a secret information was received that Rana Sohail co-accused, who was dismissed from service from N.I.C.
Department, in the days of elections, had received huge illegal gratification from the candidates of Nazim and Naib Nazim for preparing the forged identity cards in his, Haveli. A raid was conducted and three persons i.e, Rana Sohail, - Muhammad Sarwar (petitioner) and Nisar Ahmad were apprehended at the spot, who were preparing forged N.I.Cs. Some articles/ materials used for preparing N.I.Cs., were recovered from the place of occurrence. Some complete and incomplete N.I.Cs. Of male and female were also recovered from the place of occurrence. Rana Sohail, coaccused stated to the complainant that they in connivance with Asmatullah, Arif Sheikh, Abid Arain and Rafaqate Ali, were preparing these Identity Cards. Hence the F.I.R.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that co-accused Rana Muhammad Sohail has been granted bail by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 3-1-2006 while accepting Criminal Petition No,620-L of 2005 and Nisar Ahmad co-accused has also been admitted to bail by this Court- while allowing Crl. Miscellaneous N0.II8O-B of 2006 vide order dated 7-3-2006 and case of the present petitioner being at par with the case of said co-accuse<] he is also entitled to the same treatment.
4. The learned State counsel has opposed his bail petition on the ground 'that earlier Criminal Miscellaneous No,8942-B of 2005 filed by the petitioner after complete arguments was dismissed as Withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 19-12-2005.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as copy of the judgment passed by the honourable Supreme Court in the bail matter of Rana Sohail co-accused.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail to Rana Muhammad Sohail, co-accused while accepting Crl. Petition No,- 620-L of 2005 and the case of the petitioner is on better footing with the case of the said co-accused. Moreover, Nisar Ahmad co-accused has also been granted bail by this Court while allowing .Crl. Miscellaneous N0.II8O-B of 2006 vide order dated 7-3-2006. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on the principle of consistency.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner, is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial/IIIaqa Magistrate.