TAIMOOR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Taimoor, who was charged in a robbery and murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused had been granted pre-arrest bail by the trial court despite the circumstances of the case suggesting it was a matter of further inquiry. The High Court observed that no incriminating evidence, such as the weapon of offense or the robbed property, was recovered from the applicant. Furthermore, the identification test was conducted fourteen days after the arrest without specifying the role of the accused. The Court held that the trial court erred by applying inconsistent standards, granting relief to one co-accused while denying it to the applicant under similar circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the trial court's previous grant of pre-arrest bail to a wanted accused was legally improper, as such an individual should only have sought post-arrest bail, and that judicial consistency is essential in bail adjudication.
- Whether the principle of consistency requires the grant of bail to an accused when a co-accused in similar circumstances has already been granted relief?
- Can an accused who is wanted in a criminal case seek pre-arrest bail, or is post-arrest bail the only appropriate remedy?
- Does an identification test conducted fourteen days after arrest without specific role attribution carry significant evidentiary weight for the purpose of bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---On 19-12-2008, the complainant reported to the police that three unknown persons armed with repeater committed robbery by having snatched the repeater of one Moula Bux with his license while present on the place of wardhat at 6-30 a.m., and also caused his death by having given to him single fire shot through their aforesaid weapons, and 'then managed to escape. The police registered the F.I.R. and began to investigate the same. One Rahib and another namely, Taimoor were arrested in the case as suspect on 8-2-2009 under one and the same memo before the same mashirs. No crime weapon was secured from their respective possession, either on the relevant time or later on. The robbed property referred to above, was also not secured either from their possession or on their pointation in any manner whatsoever. The deceased who had sustained single shot injury and died on the spot was subjected to postmortem and according to the Medical Officer, such, injury caused such death being fatal.
2. The police during the investigation secured blood-stained earth from the spot in a sealed cover. No crime empty was secured but upper portion (made 'of lead) of the bullet was secured. The co- accused Rahib arrested on 1-2-2009 disclosed on 7-2-2009, during the investigation of the police, the name of his third companion of the crime in 'question, as Riaz. The said Riaz however, surrendered himself before the learned Sessions. Judge, and got the pre arrest bail from the same Court on 11-6-2009 'in Crime No,347/2009. The order shows that ad interim pre-arrest bail granted on 5-5-2009, was confirmed in the same terms and conditions in the matter. The case-law relied on is reported as 2005 M LD 716 2005 M LD 997, 2007 PCr.LJ 1902 and 2007 YLR 1598, which is on the point of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel. states that the accused Taimoor, the present applicant, when requested for grant of bail on similar footings, was refused by the order dated 5-4-2010 on the ground that he was picked up in the identification test as one of the culprits. In this regard, learned counsel states that since the said test carried no reference of the role and that it was held after 14 days of the arrest in question, the same could hardly carry any weight and the learned Judge ignored the principles and norms of law settled by the superior courts of the country on such aspect. The case according the learned counsel appears to be one of further enquiry as a whole for all accused persons including the applicant, yet, the learned trial Court, that had, already extended such benefit in similar circumstances on such score of law to one of the co-accused named above, refused to extend the same in a case of present applicant and such refusal amounts to using two different yard sticks or course of pick and choose in the matter of grant and refusal of bail.
4. Learned State counsel concedes the request.
5. The applicant is granted bail against furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. The copies of this matter may be sent to the Registrar for onward transmission to the learned trial Judge for his future guidance. The Registrar is directed to take the notice that the bail before arrest under section 498, Cr.P.C. has been granted to one of the accused persons by the Judge in the matter of .the trial pending in his Court, despite the fact that such accused was wanted thereof and in such a case, he could only seek post arrest bail. Therefore, pre-arrest bail granted in shape of ad interim order and then by the order confirming the same on two different dates, is nothing but a favour which is no service to justice.