Haji Muhammad vs State, and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Haji Muhammad, in connection with F.I.R. No. 25/2018 registered at Police Station Saddar, Multan, for offenses under Sections 302, 365, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the status of his co-accused. The Court observed that the incident was reported with an unexplained delay of two days, and the petitioner was not initially nominated in the F.I.R., with his name appearing only in a subsequent statement. Furthermore, the Court noted that co-accused individuals had already been granted post-arrest bail. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that the petitioner's case was at par with those of his co-accused. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where co-accused persons have been granted bail, the rule of consistency dictates similar treatment for others similarly situated, provided no distinguishing factors exist.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused persons have already been granted post-arrest bail?
- Can an unexplained delay in reporting an incident influence the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if they were not initially nominated in the F.I.R.?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Haji Muhammad, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in- case registered vide F.I.R. No. 25/2018 dated 21.01.2018, at Police Station Saddar , Multan, for of fences under Sections 302, 365, 34, P .P.C.
2. The complainant reported, abduction of her son. Later on, he was murdered and the petitioner was arrested in this case.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was, straightaway observed that the incident war, reported With unexplained delay of two day. The petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and his name find mentioned in the statement of the complainant recorded on 08.02.2018 admissibility whereof shall be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording evidence at trial. The co-accused of the petitioner including Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Javaid have been admitted to post-arrest bail by the Court vide order dated 15.10.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3963-B of 2018 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3966-B of 2018.
The case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused earlier admitted to bail and, thus, rule of consistency is attracted in this case. The petitioner is in jail since his arrest and his continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair . The petitioner has successfully made out a case for his enlargement on bail.
4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2, 00,000/- with one surety in the like amou nt to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/duty judge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.