ABDUL KHADI vs The STATE
This matter concerns a bail petition filed by the petitioner, who is charged with offences under Sections 379 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, following the refusal of bail by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that his co-accused had previously been granted bail by the High Court. The Court held that the rule of consistency did not apply in this instance because the petitioner and his co-accused were willfully employing delaying tactics to prevent the framing of charges in the trial court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial had been adjourned multiple times due to requests from the petitioner or his counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the conduct of the accused in delaying the proceedings precluded the application of the rule of consistency.
- Does the rule of consistency automatically entitle an accused to bail if a co-accused has been granted the same relief?
- Can an accused rely on the rule of consistency if they are willfully employing delaying tactics to stall the trial?
- Is the refusal of bail justified when the accused is responsible for repeated adjournments in the framing of charges?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Petitioner, who is involved for the offence of Sections 379/392, P.P.C., booked through FIR No,02/2015 and offence under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance, booked through FIR No,03/2015, of Police Station Goner Farm Chilas, District Diamer, seek his release on bail, through this petition. Previously, petitioner sought similar facility from the court of Sessions Judge Diamer, through B.A. No,14/2015, who, through his order dated 02-05-2015, refused to grant the same facility.
2. Police chalked FIR on written application of FIR lodger, Mr. Shah Mirza, an ASI/IP of the police Station Goner Farm. Prior to chalking of FIR, police conducted inquiry under section 157, Cr.P.C.
Through the FIR lodger. In the light of report of the FIR lodger, as a result of such inquiry, the FIR was chalked, wherein, the FIR lodger reported that the petitioner and his co-accused Ikramullah committed robbery in the mid Highway and robbed Rs,27,000/- besides two cell phones from Mr. Mohammad Aftab Abbasi, a driver of the truck. Through order dated 02-05-2015, the learned Sessions Judge Diamer refused the bail facility to the petitioner and his co-accused. The said co- accused, Ikramullah, filed a bail petition in this Court and obtained bail facility.
3. I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that rule of consistency applies to the case of petitioner, as his co-accused has been released on bail from this Court. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Admittedly, police has submitted challan in the trial court on 14-05-2015 and case has been fixed for framing charge of the petitioner and his co-accused. Admittedly, so far, trial court has adjourned the case fifth time for framing charge of the petitioner and his co-accused from 25-04- 2015 to 29-06-2015. The framing of charge could not be done only because of request of the petitioner or his counsel. Per material available on record, police has recovered Rs,9000 as part of stolen amount and A one of the stolen cell phone. It is also admitted that petitioner is government employee in Gilgit-Baltistan PWD.
5. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rule of consistency does not attract and petitioner did his co-accused are willfully using delaying tactics. I, therefore, dismiss this petition.
This file be consigned to record.