IMRAN vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application challenges the dismissal of the applicant's post-arrest bail petition by the trial court in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 394, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and the rule of consistency, given that co-accused facing similar or related allegations were previously granted bail by the High Court. The court held that despite the applicant being nominated in the FIR and a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the delayed conclusion of trial, material contradictions in the prosecution story, and the fact that co-accused had already been admitted to bail brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the rule of consistency applies to grant bail where circumstances warrant parity, alongside considerations of statutory delay and tentative assessment of record at the bail stage.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of the rule of consistency when co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial make a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a murder case where there are material contradictions in the prosecution story and the FIR was not lodged by an eyewitness?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---This bail application is directed against the order dated 8-9-2007 passed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in Sessions case No,30/2007, in Crime No,290/2006, under sections 302/324/394/34, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Clifton whereby application of the applicant was dismissed.
2. ' Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Shamsuddin lodged an F.I.R.
3. On 31-12-2006 at 0515 hours regarding the incident, which is said to have occurred on 30-12-2006 at 2100 hours near Chandni Chowk, Upper Gizri, Clifton, in which the complainant stated that when he was present at his home he came to know that his son Masood Akhtar had a quarrel with some Brohi boys and his son had been injured as a result of firing and had been transported to the Jinnah Hospital and subsequently to Liaquat National Hospital. The complainant went to the Hospital and found his son in its Emergency Centre, and there he came to know that one Imran son of Muhammad Umer along with 2-3 companions caused {{PAGE CUT}} rm injures to his son with TT pistol the intention to kill, hence F.I.R. Was ered under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Police arrested the accused Imran son of Muhammad Umer and fter, inspected the place of incidence ;cured three empties of a pistol of .30 'rom the place of incidence, and also .Ed site inspection memo., but on the Jay the injured succumbed to his ;, as a result, section 302, P.P.C. Wed.
4. The accused and the co-accused rrested. The statements of the witnesses section 164, Cr.P.C. Were recorded the Judicial Magistrate-VII, Karachi and witnesses said to have also ed all the three accused. Thereafter has been submitted before the trial Court {{PAGE CUT}} ' It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused namely Umair and Imran son of Sadiq have .Been granted bail by this Court in criminal Bail Application bearing No, 800/2008 vide order dated 13-8-2008 therefore, applicant is also entitled for the same relief as per rule of consistency.
5. ' Learned State counsel has conceded.
6. ' Heard both the learned counsel and perused the record.
7. Though the case of the applicant is different from the co-accused as the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R. With specific role and one P.W. Farooq also nominated the applicant in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. But the prosecution also implicated the co- accused without any evidence, and besides, the F.I.R. Was not lodged by eye-witness and there are material contradictions in the prosecution story.
8. ' The applicant is in custody since 1-1-2007 and till now only examination of the complainant has been completed. The applicant himself went to the same hospital where the injured/deceased was brought, makes the case one of further enquiry. I restrain myself to any deeper appreciation at this stage, as it may prejudice either party. Nevertheless, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and in the bail order of the co-accused and on the grounds of the Rule of consistency the applicant is entitled to bail, hence bail was granted to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' Above are the reasons of the short order dated 13-10-2008.
Cited by 1 case
- Malik AMJAD PERVAIZ vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 YLR 1907