Mujeeb Ullah and 2 others vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by three accused persons in connection with FIR No. 15/2017, registered for offences under sections 368 and 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, particularly in light of the rule of consistency, given that principal co-accused had already been granted bail by the court. The court observed that the petitioners were not directly charged in the FIR, which was initially lodged against unknown persons. Furthermore, the court noted that the principal accused had been released on bail, and the complainant had entered into a compromise with the principal accused. Applying the rule of consistency, the court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail despite allegations of abscondence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where co-accused with identical roles have been granted bail, the rule of consistency applies to subsequent petitioners.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of abscondence if the principal accused has been granted bail and a compromise has been reached?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if they were not directly named in the FIR?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 368, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant bail petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No.15/2017 dated 27.5.2017 registered under sections 368, 365-B/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Astore.
2. It may be mentioned here that earlier the petitioners had filed bail petition in the Court of learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide bail order dated 28-01-2018.
Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/ accused contended that the petitioners/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention by the local police. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that principal accused namely Tahir Iqbal and others co-accused of the petitioners have been granted post arrest bail by this court, hence rule of consistency applies to the case of the present petitioners/accused and as such, the petitioners are also entitled for concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Dy. AG vehemently opposed this petition by contending that soon after the occurrence the petitioners/ accused were absconded, therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Dy.AG and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. From perusal of contents of FIR it transpires that the present petitioners/accused were not directly charged in the FIR rather FIR was lodged against unknown culprits/ persons. Moreover, principal accused namely Tahir Iqbal and his co-accused have been released on bail by this court vide bail order dated 02-02-2018,hence rule of consistency applies to the case of the petitioners/accused as identical role has been attributed to all the co- accused who have already been granted bail by this court and the present petitioners/accused are also entitled for concession of bail.
7. Furthermore, the complainant has entered into compromise with the principal accused namely Tahir Iqbal and bail cannot be refused on the ground that the petitioners were absconded soon after the occurrence.
10(sic). For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.300,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. File.