ABBAS Ali vs STATE, etc.
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the rule of consistency and the findings of the investigating officer. The Court observed that a co-accused, who had been attributed an identical role, had already been granted bail by the trial court. Furthermore, the investigation report indicated that the petitioner was merely present at the scene and had not fired any shots or caused any injuries to the deceased or the complainant. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner’s case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the petitioner’s continued detention would serve no useful purpose as the investigation was complete and the trial had not yet commenced, the Court granted the bail petition, affirming that the rule of consistency must be applied to ensure equitable treatment of similarly situated accused persons.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted relief?
- When does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the investigation reveals they did not commit the specific overt act of firing or causing injury?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abbas A.I, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 234/14 dated 12.08.2014, offence under Sections 302/324/148/149, PPC, registered with Police Station Sheikh Fazil, District Vehari.
2. According to the story of the FIR, the petitioner with co-accused in furtherance of common object while armed with rifle murdered the mother of the complainant and also caused injuries on his left leg.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that during investigation Fazal Ahmed co-accused was found innocent and his bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.09.2014. While pre-arrest bail of co-accused namely Mst. Shahida, Mst. Lqra and Mst. Raheela was confirmed by learned ASJ Burewala vide order dated 25.09.2014. Record further reveals that post-arrest bail of the co- accused Nazir Ahmed having same role has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2015. It is argued that rule of consistency in the case in hand is fully applicable.
5. Bare perusal of FIR reveals that the role attributed to the present petitioner is identical to the co- accused namely Nazir Ahmed, who has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2015 as such petitioner deserved same relief. Reliance can be placed on the cases of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCM R 1380) and Shafqat Hussain vs. The State (2007 YLR 1159).
6. Further, during investigation, vide case diary No. 07 dated 18.10.2014, according to Investigating Officer only presence of petitioner at the place of occurrence was found. I.O. Further mentioned that the petitioner did not make any fire with his gun nor injured any person. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury to the deceased or the injured/complainant.
The petitioner is behind the bars since 27.10.2014 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from his possession and his further detention would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Though challan has been submitted before the trial Court, but trial has not been commenced so far.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497 of, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has succeeded to make out his case of post-arrest bail. Hence, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Before parting with the order, it is made clear he observations rendered above are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party.