IMAM BUX vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Imam Bux facing trial in Crime No. 100 of 2005 registered at Police Station Padidan under sections 302, 201, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves determining whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of consistency, given that a co-accused on identical footings had already been granted bail, and considering that material prosecution witnesses examined before the trial court did not support the prosecution case. The Sindh High Court held that since a co-accused with an identical case had been enlarged on bail and prosecution witnesses had not supported the case, the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under the rule of consistency. The court accordingly allowed the bail application, directing the applicant's release subject to furnishing solvent surety.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when a co-accused on identical footings has already been granted bail?
- Does the failure of material prosecution witnesses to support the prosecution case at trial justify the grant of bail?
- Whether the applicant makes out a case for further inquiry under the criminal procedure when there is no direct ocular evidence linking him to the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.--- This is a bail application on behalf of applicant Imam Bux in the case vide Crime No,100 of 2005, Police Station Padidan for offence under sections 302, 201, 147, 148, P.P.C. The bail application of applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Naushero Feroze vide order, dated 24-9-2008.
2. ' As per F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Ali Sher at Police Station Padidan on 17-12-2005, there is last- seen evidence against co-accused persons namely Sajjad Lashari, Hidayatullah Pajpers and two unidentified persons, who had allegedly taken away deceased Muhammad Hayat with themselves for the purpose of Faisla between present applicant and Muhammad Hayat. Previously there was exchange of hot words between applicant and Muhammad Hayat over the matter of business of buffaloes. Learned counsel for applicant has 'submitted that co-accused Sajjan, who is placed on identical footings to that of applicant, has been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 19-9- 2008. The applicant is confined in jail since last nearly three years. Complainant Ali Sher, and. P. Ws.
3. Muhammad Saffar and Raja Khan have been examined before learned trial Court and all of them have not supported the prosecution case.
4. Learned State Counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to applicant, as co-accused Sajjan has been granted bail by this Court.
5. ' It appears that there is no direct ocular evidence against applicant. The dead body of deceased Muhammad Hayat was allegedly found later on, and apparently the name of applicant along with co-accused was given in suspicion. Co-accused Sajjan, whose case is almost identical to that of applicant, has already been granted bail 6y this Court.
6. ' As such, keeping in view the rule of consistency, the applicant would be entitled to concession of bail. Accordingly this bail application is allowed, and the applicant may be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Taimoor vs The State and another 2019 SHC 208
- REHAN vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 589