SHAUKAT ALI alias LALOO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by Shaukat Ali alias Laloo, who sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of causing injuries with a hatchet. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail by the trial court. The court observed that the allegations against the applicant and the co-accused were identical, and the injuries attributed to the applicant fell under sections punishable by up to five years imprisonment, thereby excluding the case from the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. The court held that since the co-accused had already been released on bail, the applicant was entitled to the same relief based on the principle of consistency. Consequently, the court confirmed the applicant's interim pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where co-accused persons face identical allegations and the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the principle of consistency dictates that bail should be granted to ensure parity in judicial treatment.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does a case involving offenses punishable by up to five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(i), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.---The allegations against applicant Shaukat Ali alias Laloo and accused Sabir are identical. It is stated in the F.I.R. That accused Sabir and Shoukat were armed with hatchet and they caused injuries to complainant as well as his father. Accused Sabir has been granted bail by the trial Court on 15-8-2003. Bail of present applicant is sought on the principle of consistency. The bail order dated 12-11-2003 indicates that present applicant Shaukat caused sharp sided hatchet blows to injured Muharram on his head. In fact the observation stated in the bail order is contrary to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. The allegations against two accused are same. The injuries caused on the person of injured Muharram and Noor Muhammad are falling under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(ii),337-(v), which are punishable upto five years only. The case of applicant is not covered by the prohibitory clause contained in section 497(i), Cr.P.C.
2. ' Since accused Sabir is already released on bail, therefore the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of consistency. He was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 25-11-2003 which is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
Cited by 5 cases
- Sohail Raza Versus State 2026 YLR 393
- Akbar @ Akbar Ali vs The State 2024 SHC 1144
- Nawab Ali and 8 others vs State PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1537
- Nawab Ali and others vs State PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1319
- Altaf vs The State 2019 SHC 270