Mukhtiar & another vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Mukhtiar and another, who were charged with the murder of a public servant, PC Abdul Hameed, while discharging his lawful duties. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail, particularly given the principle of consistency, as a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by the trial court. The applicants argued their innocence, claiming false implication and that the identification parade was conducted with significant delay. The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that their names were absent from the FIR, the identification parade occurred three days after their arrest, and the principle of consistency applied because a co-accused with a similar role had already been admitted to bail. The Court further observed that the recovery of the crime weapon was alleged to be a result of foistation. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to the furnishing of surety.
- Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted when the recovery of the crime weapon is alleged to be a result of foistation?
- Is a delay in holding an identification parade a relevant factor in determining the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprit in furtherance of their common intention fired and killed PC Abdul Hameed when he was discharging his lawful duty as a public servant, for that they were booked accordingly .
2. The applicants on having been refused post arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I(MCTC) Dadu, have sought for the same from this court by way of making instant application under section 497 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the police; it was unseen incident and co-accused Karim Dad alias Tooh with utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicants on bail on point of consistency and further inquiry . In support of his contention he relied upon cases of Ghulam Shabbir vs The State (2012 YLR 1199), Waqar Shah vs The State (2012 P.Cr.L.J 866) and Abid Ali alias Ali vs The State ( 2011 SCMR 161 ).
4. Learned A.P.G for the State and learne d counsel for the complainant have opposed to release of the applicants on bail by contending that there is recovery of crime weapon and jurisdiction of learned trial Court is yet to be decided.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The names and descriptions of the applicants are not appearing in FIR. The applicants have been subjected to identification parade on 3rd day of their arrest, which appears to be significant. Co-accused Karim Dad with utmost similar role has already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. In these circumstances, it would be hard to deny concession of bail to the applicants on point of recovery of crime weapon when it is alleged to be result of foistation.
8. In view of above, the applicants are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/-each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .