MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 4 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by five applicants who were booked in two separate F.I.R.s (No. 67 of 2011 and No. 68 of 2011) for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from a protest and subsequent vandalism involving an armed mob. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the principle of consistency. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that the allegations against them were general in nature, no weapons were recovered from them, and no medical evidence was available to connect them to the alleged offences. Furthermore, the court observed that a Division Bench had previously granted bail to other co-accused in the same F.I.R.s. Consequently, the court applied the principle of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and allowed the bail applications, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.
- Does the absence of specific role assignment and weapon recovery justify the grant of bail?
- Is the principle of consistency applicable when co-accused in the same F.I.R. have already been granted bail?
- When does a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arise in bail proceedings?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 47, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SALMAN HAMID, Muhammad Siddique, Altaf Hussain, , Attaullah, Muhammad Allayas and Gul Hassan, (the applicants) were booked for offences punishable under sections 324, 353, 440, 337A(i), 47, 148, 149 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Codes and 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act at Police Station Shandadpur in F.I.R. No, 67 of 2011 and in F.I.R. No,68 of 2011 for offences punishable under sections 324; 353, 435, 440, 147, 148, 149, 337A(i), 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code and 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act at Police Station Shandadpur. Allegations deducible from the F.I.R. Were that Khudad Brohi, Amir Bux Brohi and Nazir Ahmed Brohi had been alluded for keeping weapons' illegally and for interference in the official government work and upon their arrest, (F.I.R. No,61 of 2011) a horde duly armed with assorted weapons protested for release of such accused/criminals and to attain such purpose, the mob resorted to vandalism. The present accused as per contents of F.I.R. Had been arrested as a result of this happening.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants mainly argued on the point of consistency by bringing up that a Division Bench of this court in other bail applications, (761 of 2011 and 762 of 2011 Shaukat Ali and others v. State dated 11-7-2011 order passed separately) which emanated from the present F.I.R. Enlarged the accused therein on bail. Additionally the learned counsel also argued that no specific role is assigned to the applicants nor any weapon was recovered from them. Medical evidence connecting the applicants was also not at hand with the prosecution.
3. Learned Additional P.G. Looking to the above facet of the matter did not contest the application and gave in.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have also looked into the' file. Bare perusal of the F.I.R.
Would show that the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicants prima facie carry weight inasmuch as that the allegations are general in nature; and that no recovery of the weapons was made from the applicants; and, that till date medical report has not come on record.
These, grounds, coupled with the consent of the learned Additional P.G. Seemingly shows that a case under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Has been made out, and the bail applications are allowed. The applicants are therefore enlarged on bail, subject, however, to their furnishing solvent surety in an amount of Rs,100,000 each and PR bond of the same fashion to the satisfaction of the trial court.
5. Needless to mention that the result of this shall not affect the decision of the trial which would be independent of these.