SlKANDAR MALLAH vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application was filed by the applicant seeking release on bail in Crime No. 1 of 2005 registered under Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Sections 382, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail based on the rule of consistency where co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail by the High Court. The High Court granted bail subject to the applicant furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle affirmed is that where co-accused charged with similar roles and identical allegations are granted bail, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of consistency, especially when the prosecution concedes.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of rule of consistency when co-accused facing identical allegations have already been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted where the State counsel concedes to the applicability of the rule of consistency?
- Section 20, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.-Through this bail application, applicant Sikandar Mallah, who is involved in Crime No, 1 of 2005 registered with Police Station Mirpur, under section 20 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sections 382, 148, 149 and 34, P.P.C, seeks bail on the ground of consistency.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant states that since co-accused against whom same allegations are levelled in the F.I.R, have been granted bail by this Court, Applicant Sikandar Mallah may also be enlarge on bail on the ground of rule of consistency.
3. ' Learned State Counsel concedes to the grant of bail to the applicant on the rule of consistency.
4. ' Looking to the circumstances, applicant Sikandar Mahah is also granted bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHZAD Versus State 2017 YLRN 165