IBRAHIM SHAH vs STATE etc.
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 125/2018 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari, involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and consistency with co-accused already granted bail, given a conflicting cross-version and an affidavit of innocence by the injured witness. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the presence of a cross-version supported by police investigation, an affidavit of innocence by the injured witness, and the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under the rule of consistency. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of consistency in bail matters and the evaluation of cross-versions and statements of injured witnesses at the pre-trial bail stage.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a cross-version supported by police investigation brings the case within the scope of further inquiry?
- Does an affidavit from the injured witness stating the accused is innocent warrant the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been admitted to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Ibrahim Shah is booked in case FIR No. 125/2018 dated 3.5.2018 registered at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari, for offences under Sectio ns 302/324/148/149 PPC. Through this application he seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.
2. As per FIR, the prosecution case is that on 3-5-2018 at about 12:00 noon/01:00 p.m. the Petitioner and his co- accused while armed with deadly weapons formed an -unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object attacked the complainant party . As a result, Complainant's father (Mukhtar Shah son of Rasheed Shah) was killed and his step-mother Sidra Bibi was injured.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. According to the FIR the precise allega tion against the Petitioner is that he shot at Mukhtar Shah in the face with his .12 bore pistol. Sidra Bibi, who was allegedly injured in the occurrence and is the star witness of this case, has filed an affidavit categorically stating that he is innocent did not fire at Mukhtar Shah deceased at all. More importantly , this is a case of two versions. Co-accused Mukhtar Shah son of Sher Shah has lodged Cross-version No. 1/18 dated 3-5-2018 registered unde r Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC according to which the I complainant party of the instant FIR was the aggressor . Two persons from the Petitioner's side also lost their lives in the occurrence. During the investigation the police have confirmed this stance of the petitioner party vide Zimni No. 33 dated 10-7-2018. In the circumstances, it calls for further inquiry to determine guilt of the Petitioner for the alleged offence. Co-accused Mukhtar Shah son of Sher Shah has already been admitted to bail by this Court whose role is at par with him. The Petitioner is entitled to the same relief on the basis of rule of consistency . Reliance is placed on "Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi Vs. The State " (1979 SCMR 9) and "Muhammad Daud and another Vs. The State and another " (2008 SCMR 173 ).
5.The Petitioner is in jail since 09-05-2018. He has joined the investigation, is not required by the police for any further probe.
His trial is not likely to be concluded in the foreseeable future. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period.
6. For what has been discussed above,, this application is allowed . The Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail .bond in the sum of Rs.200 ,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.