PIR BAKHSH vs STATE etc
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 215 dated 26.04.2009 registered under Sections 379, 148, 149, 337-A(iii), and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shedani, District Rahimyar Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of consistency, given that his co-accused facing similar allegations of joint beating had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of his released co-accused and that he was entitled to bail under the rule of consistency. The court laid down the principle that courts must accord equal treatment to accused persons having identical roles in the same case, and bail cannot be denied to an accused whose case is at par with one already granted bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have already been released on bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant equal treatment to accused persons having the same role in the same case?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
Pir Bakhsh alias Peeran Ditta petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 215 dated 26.04.2009 registered under Sections 379/148/149/337-A(iii)/H(ii) PC at Police Station Shedani District Rahimyar Khan.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as mentioned in the FIR is that 5 persons, out of which, one was armed with rifle, other was armed with .12 bore pistol and rest of three persons were armed with sticks attacked upon the complainant and caused him injuries with butt of rifle and blows with sticks. According to the complainant, he and the witnesses identified the petitioner, Ghulam Rasool, Zulfiqar and Abid out of those five persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific role during the occurrence has been attributed to the petitioner and joint beating is alleged against the petitioner, Zulfiqar, Ghulam Rasool and Abid and one unknown person. Further contends that his co-accused namely Zulfiqar and Ghulam Rasool were released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide orders dated 6.10.2009 and 12.10.2009 respectively and the case of the present petitioner is at par with that of the said co-accused persons.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP for the State could not distinguish the case of the petitioner from the case of his co-accused Zulfiqar and Ghulam Rasool who have already been released on bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Rule of consistency is always taken into consideration by the Courts since long because a person cannot be denied for the grant of bail whose case is at par of an accused who had already been released on bail.
The Courts have to give equal treatment to the accused persons having one and the same role in the same case. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi us. The State (1979 SCMR 09), Khadim Hussain vs. The State (1983 SCMR 124), Manzoor Ahmad and others vs. The State (PLJ 1999 Cr.C. (Lahore) 570) and Muhammad Daud and another vs. The State and another (2008 SCM R 173). As the case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused Zulfiqar and Ghulam Rasool who had already been allowed bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the bail.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rs, One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.