ABDUL WAHID vs STATE etc.
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 305/2017, registered at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari, under Sections 498-A, 376, 380, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of administering intoxicants, abduction, and theft of property including a motorcycle, gold ornaments, and cash. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing identical allegations and roles had already been granted bail by the court. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to distinguish the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. Consequently, the Court held that the principle of consistency applied, entitling the petitioner to the same relief. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing that where roles are identical, a co-accused is entitled to the same treatment as one already granted bail.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused with the same allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to distinguish the role of a petitioner from a co-accused justify the grant of bail?
- Section 498-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner namely Abdul Wahld seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 305, dated 23.08.2017, registered under Sections 498.A1376/ 380/381-A/411, PPC, at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari,
2. The precise allegations against the petitioner, as per FIR, are that he along with his co-accused, had administered some intoxicant to Ali Heider and abducted Met, Sidra Bibi; the accused had also taken away motorcycle, gold ornaments and cash of Rs, 47,500/., belonging to the complainant.
3. Arguments heard and record perused,
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a co-accused namely Satter Shah, having the same allegations and role as against the petitioner, has been admitted to bail, through order dated 21.02.2018, passed in Crl,Misc. No, 202. 1 /2018, hence the petitioner also deserves the same treatment.
5. When the above mentioned proposition has been put to the learned Prosecutor in attendance, he has failed to draw any major distinction between the case of the present petitioner and his above named co-accused, In this way, principle of consistency is fully applicable to the Me of the petitioner, hence he is entitled to the same relief, as has already been extended to his co-accused,
6. Resultantly, on the basis of the above said principle, the petition in hand is kilowatt and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Re. 1,00,000/.
(Rupees one lac only), with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.