SIKANDAR vs THE STATE and another
This post-arrest bail petition arose out of case F.I.R. No. 155 of 2010 registered at Police Station Muhammad Pur, District Rajan Pur, originally under Section 365, P.P.C. with Sections 302, 201, 109, 148, and 149, P.P.C. added subsequently. The core legal issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency and in light of the complainant's non-opposition. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 200,000 with one surety. The court relied on the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court, making the petitioner's case indistinguishable, coupled with the state and complainant expressing no objection. The key principle affirmed is that where a co-accused in a similar position has been granted bail and the prosecution/complainant does not oppose, an accused is entitled to bail under the rule of consistency.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when a similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the complainant and the prosecution do not oppose the bail application?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, petitioner Sikandar seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,155 of 2010 dated 24-6-2010, offence under section 365, P.P.C. (subsequently sections 302, 201, 109, 148, 149 were added), registered at Police Station Muhammad Pur District Rajan Pur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the case was registered under section 365, P.P.C. In which the petitioner was allowed bail by the learned trial court; that there is no incriminating evidence available on the file against the petitioner; that there is a delay A of about three years in lodging of the F.I.R.; that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Hanif has already been granted bail by the learned trial court and case of the petitioner is at par with the case of his co- accused and he is entitled for bail even on the rule of consistency.
3. Complainant Shahab-ud-Din (father of the deceased), present before the Court, identified by the Investigating Officer, does not oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, in view of the statement of B. The complainant and the bail granting order in favour of co-accused Hanif states that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable than the case of his co-accused, namely Hanif and he does not oppose this bail petition on the ground of consistency.
5. In view of the above, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.