Pakistan Case Law
2011 P Cr. L J 834

MUHAMMAD AYOOB alias AYOOB vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 P Cr. L J 834
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No, 650 and M.As. Nos. 2709, 2710 of 2010
Date2010-08-06
Judge(s)Muhammad Tasnim
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by Muhammad Ayoob alias Ayoob seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question addressed is whether the rule of consistency in granting bail should be applied to an accused person whose case is similarly placed to twenty-three co-accused who have already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the lower court. The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail on the basis of the rule of consistency, given that the Deputy Prosecutor General raised no objection and confirmed that the applicant's assigned role in the First Information Report is identical to that of the already-bailed co-accused. The key principle laid down is that an accused person is entitled to bail under the rule of consistency when similarly placed co-accused have already been granted bail and the prosecution does not oppose the same.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused person is entitled to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
  • Does the lack of opposition from the prosecution influence the application of the rule of consistency in bail matters?
pre-arrest bailrule of consistencycriminal procedureco-accused paritybail application

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.--Learned counsel for the applicant says that other co-accused numbering 23 have already been admitted to pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Session's Judge (Hudood), Sukkur per order dated 12-7-2010. He says that case of the applicant is similarly placed as he has been assigned the same role which has been assigned in the F.I.R. to other mentioned 23 co- accused.

2. Learned DPG confirms the statement of learned counsel for the applicant and says that he has no objection if rule of consistency is followed and present applicant is also admitted to bail.

3. ' In the circumstances, present applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 (One lac) and execution of personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

4. ' Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.