AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by Ahmad Khan seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dharama, District D.G. Khan, arising from an incident involving a dispute over accounts resulting in a fatality. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency, given that his co-accused facing identical allegations and involving a case of two opposing versions had already been admitted to bail by the court. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since the matter involved two versions of the same incident requiring trial determination and several co-accused similarly situated had already been granted bail, the rule of consistency squarely applied. The court laid down the principle that an accused person is entitled to bail on the ground of consistency when the case mirrors that of co-accused who have already been granted bail by competent judicial forums.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused with identical allegations have already been granted bail?
- Does a case involving two opposing versions of an incident warrant further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Can the benefit of bail granted to co-accused in a cross-version or the same F.I.R. be extended to a subsequent petitioner under the rule of consistency?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Ahmad Khan through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,126 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. With Police Station Dharama. District D.G. Khan on 7-5-2009.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that in the morning on 7-5-2009, he while having pistol along with other carrying similar weapons, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them, have committed the qatl-e-amd of Nasrullah, the deceased brother of the complainant. He had fired with his said weapon at him hitting on his back. Nawab Khan had fired with pistol hitting him on the similar part of his body. Sher Jan fired with .12 bore gun hitting him on such part of the body. Muhammad Khan fired with pistol and he (petitioner) came ahead and the fire hit him on his right and left thigh.
' The motive behind the occurrence is dispute over accounts.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that his co- accused Nawab Khan and Noor Muhammad have been allowed bail by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3305/B of 2009 and Criminal Miscellaneous. No,3853/B of 2009 respectively on 23-11-2009 mainly on the consideration of this case being of two versions. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below for clarity of the situation and facility of reference:--- "(5) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is definitely a case of two versions of one incident. So, it is yet to be ascertained that which of these is correct and which not. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case Ali Shehryar v. The State 2008 SCM R 1448.
(6) I may mention here that it is well-settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that even one ground, which may be cogent and recognized in law can suffice to base an order or finding by Court.
(7) It may be mentioned here that on such ground aforementioned Muhammad Khan was allowed bail in this case. The ratio of his case is attracted to his case. Hence, respectfully following the view expressed by their lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, I am inclined to accept both these petitions".
4. It may be mentioned here that this co-accused Sher Jan has been allowed bail in this case on 22-7-2009 by his lordship Abdul Sattar Goraya, J., in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2879/B of 2009 and Muhammad Khan on 10-9-2009 by his lordship Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J, in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1038/B of 2009, whereas Amanulalh Khan, Fayyaz Ahmed and Haji Riaz Ahmad in the cross- version on 8-7-2009 by his lordship Pervaiz Inayat Malik, J. (as they then were).
5. It has been argued on his behalf that his case for the purposes of bail is identical to his above said co-accused and so, in view of the rule of consistency, he is also entitled to the similar relief.
6. There is no denying the fact that it is a case of two versions of the one incident. It is everybody's case before me that both the parties in the instant case have been challaned to Court and they have to face trial in each other's respective version.
7. As is obvious from the above position that it has been observed that it is yet to be ascertained that the version of which of the parties is correct and which not. In this regard the reliance has been placed upon the case of Ali Shehryar v. The State 2008 SCM R 1448. So, I am very much clear in mind that the ratio of that case is attracted to this case also.
8. I, therefore, find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out on the principle of consistency.
9. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.