KHADIM HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's bail application by the High Court. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While his co-accused had been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, the petitioner's bail applications were repeatedly dismissed by the High Court on the sole ground that his earlier bail application had been rejected. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of rule of consistency, given that his case was identical to that of his co-accused who were already released on bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the petitioner's case was absolutely at par with that of his co-accused, he was entitled to the same treatment. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, establishing that the rule of consistency must be applied when the role of the accused is identical to those already enlarged on bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of consistency if their co-accused with similar roles have already been released on bail?
- Can a subsequent bail application be dismissed solely on the ground of the rejection of an earlier bail application when co-accused have since been granted bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Khadim Hussain petitioner was accused along-with some others of offences under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. His co-accused Ramzan and Rafiq Masih were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, but the application of petitioner was dismissed on the ground that his bail application had earlier been dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner again filed an application for grant of bail before the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that his earlier bail application had been dismissed.
Hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case is abso--lutely at bar with that of the aforementioned co-accused who have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge.
We issued notice to the Advocate-General who has appeared in response thereto.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through! The material before us we are inclined to agree with the petitioner's counsel that his case is similar to that of his co-accused released on bail by the Ses--sions Judge. We, therefore, feel that the petitioner is also entitled to bail.The petition is converted into appeal and the petitioner is allowed bail I the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, each in the like a Mount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. 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.