Muhammad Niaz vs The State and others
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 11-B of the Punjab Arms Amendment Ordinance, 2015. The petitioner had been denied pre-arrest bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency where a co-accused with similar role had already been granted confirmed pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court observed that co-accused Muhammad Bilal, who was similarly nominated for firing in the air, had been granted pre-arrest bail, which was confirmed and not challenged by the complainant or the injured respondent. Finding that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable and at par with the co-accused, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under the rule of consistency.
- Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted confirmed pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the failure of the complainant or injured party to challenge the grant of pre-arrest bail to an equally placed co-accused entitles other similarly situated accused to the concession of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be denied to an accused whose case is admittedly indistinguishable from that of a co-accused who was granted bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 11-B, Punjab Arms Amendment Ordinance, 2015
ORDER
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J. For the reason set out in the application for impleadment (Crl. M.A 350- L/2021) the same is allowed and learned counsel is permitted to argue the case on behalf of Allah Yar.
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 81/2021 dated 04.03.2021, for the offences under sections 324/337-H(2)/148/149, P.P.C. read with section 11-B of the Punjab Arms Amendment Ordinance, 2015, registered at Police Station Rodala Road District Faisalabad. Petitioner was declined pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court vide impugned order.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the newly impleaded respondent (injured) and carefully gone through the available record, we observe that Muhammad Bilal, Niaz Ahmed and two/three unknown persons have specifically been nominated in the FIR, who were firing and one of the fire hit Allah Yar at his left flank. On query, it was admitted by the learned counsel for Allah Yar and also learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused Muhammad Bilal has also fired in the air but was granted pre-arrest bail, which has subsequently been confirmed by the Court. We asked from the learned counsel appearing for Allah Yar (injured) and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab that whether the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Muhammad Bilal and the answer was no. As Muhammad Bilal was granted pre-arrest bail and the said order was not challenged by Allah Yar and the complainant, and the case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused Muhammad Bilal, therefore, as per rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to relief of bail.
4. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.