MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 75 of 2006 registered under sections 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), 504, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qazi Ahmed. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the accused to pre-arrest bail in the presence of counter-cases and a delayed first information report, coupled with the rule of consistency. The Sindh High Court held that where counter-cases arise from the same incident, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail, and further noted that co-accused had already been admitted to bail. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that counter-versions of the same incident and the principle of consistency heavily favor the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Are counter-cases arising from the same incident generally covered for the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused under similar facts and circumstances have been granted pre-arrest bail?
- Whether inordinate delay in the registration of a first information report along with general allegations entitles an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- Applicant has resorted to file pre-arrest bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. In Crime No,75 of 2006 under sections 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), 504, 147, 148, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Qazi Ahmed. He was admitted on interim pre-arrest vide order, dated 6th July, 2006.
2. ' On the complaint of Waloo, upon receipt of the medical certificate, F.I.R. Was registered against the applicant and co-accused that they extended abuses and had caused hatchet injuries and Lathi blows to injured Ali Nawaz one of the member of the complainant party.
3. ' Mr. Leghari learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is inordinate delay of one month, in registration of first information report. Applicant Muhammad had resorted to lodge F.I.R.
4. No,92 of 2006 under section 337-A(i), 337-L(i), P.P.C. Against the complainant party, therefore, to take the revenge he was connected in the commission of crime. It is further contended that the allegations levelled against the applicant and co-accused are general in nature, the medical report is dated 9-1-2006 whereas the incident took place on 20-5-2005.
5. ' In support of the above contentions, reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Arif v. State reported in 2005 YLR 2350.
6. ' Learned counsel appearing for the State did not oppose the grant of bail application.
7. ' Admittedly, there are counter-cases between the parties. In case of counter-version arisen from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the first information report and other given by the opposite party. The case-law is settled that such cases, are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry and in such cases normally bail is granted on the above ground. It is also borne out from A the record that four accused connected by the complainant in the commission of crime were admitted on pre-arrest bail by the trial Court. On the principle of consistency under the similar facts and circumstances. I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The interim pre-arrest bail is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions as contained in interim pre-arrest bail referred (supra).