NAUSHER ALI vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 378 registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-L(i), 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal, for assaulting Murid Hussain deceased with a firearm. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency given that co-accused with similar role attributes had already been granted bail, notwithstanding a firearm recovery attributed to the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the delayed FIR, the cause of death being gangrene after sixty days, and the assimilable role compared to a co-accused. The court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused with assimilable roles have been granted bail?
- Does a delayed FIR and death resulting from gangrene after sixty days make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the recovery of a weapon of offence preclude the grant of bail when the role attributed is otherwise assimilable to a co-accused who was granted bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner has been reported against in case FIR No, 378 dated 10.7.2008 under Sections 302/324/337-L(i0/109/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Noor Shah District Sahiwal. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along . with his co-accused Anwar Ali and Muhammad Ali armed with deadly weapons assaulted upon Murid Hussain deceased. Petitioner caused a gun-shot injury on the buttocks of the deceased. Petitioner applied for bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8.7.2009.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Co-accused of the petitioner namely Anwar Ali has been allowed bail by this Court on 18:3.2009 in Crl. Misc. No, 88-B/2009 whereas the other co-accused Muhammad Ali was allowed bail on 2.6.2009 in Crl. Misc. No, 1316-B/2009. It is alleged that Muhammad Ali and the present petitioner both caused fire-arm injuries on the buttocks of the deceased. The distinguishing feature between Muhammad Ali and the present petitioner is that weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner whereas no recover was affected from his co-accused. The FIR was registered with delay of 11 days and the deceased according to the medical report died on account of gangrene after sixty days. Except on one point of recovery, the role attributed to the petitioner and to Muhammad Ali is assimilable.
4. For whatever it has been stated above, case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.