MUHAMMAD NADEEM vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an FIR dated 5.3.2008. The petitioner argued that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of a fatal kick blow to the abdomen, as the post-mortem report indicated no internal or external injuries and suggested death by vasovagal shock. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that his case was identical to that of a co-accused who had already been granted bail by the High Court on 29.10.2008. The State opposed the bail application, noting that the trial was nearing conclusion, with only one formal witness and the Investigating Officer remaining to be examined. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, held that the principle of consistency required extending the same concession of bail to the petitioner as was granted to his co-accused. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if a co-accused in an identical case has already been granted the same concession?
- Does the principle of consistency in bail matters apply when the trial is nearing its conclusion?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Nadeem petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 156 dated 5.3.2008 registered under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station City Burewala District Vehari.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the -allegations against the petitioner were that he inflicted kick blow in the abdomen of Mst. Bashiran Bibi deceased, who was subjected to post mortem examination and doctor did not observe any external or internal injuries in the abdomen of the deceased and the doctor is of the view that death of the deceased could be due to visovagal shock; that this Court A has already considered this case a matter of further inquiry in bail granting order dated 29.10.2008. Learned counsel also contends that-she case of the present petitioner is also identical to the case of co-accused who has already been allowed bail by this Court vide Crl.
Misc. No, 2794-B/2008 on 29.10.2008.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this prayer on the ground that the trial has almost concluded. One formal witness and the I.O. are yet to be examined. Prosecution is likely to conclude its evidence within one month. It has further been asserted that at this belated stage, concession of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
4. Considering the bail granting order dated 29.10.2008 of co-accused and without discussing the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars and he is entitled to the same concession which has already been extended to his co-accused.
5. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rs, Two lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. The learned trial Court Is expected to expedite the trial and