RASHEED Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Rasheed seeking release in case F.I.R. No.33 of 2003 registered at Police Station Sadar Chichawatni under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(iv), 337-L(ii), 337-H(ii) and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused who have already been granted bail and because the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner's role is identical to co-accused persons who were already granted bail and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the petitioner is entitled to bail as a rule. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused with identical roles are granted bail, and bail should normally be granted in non-prohibitory offences where further inquiry is warranted.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
- Does the grant of bail become a rule and refusal an exception when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a criminal case fall for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J. ---The petitioner Rasheed son of Abdul Haq seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.33 of 2003 dated 16-2-2003 offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(iv), 337-L(ii), 337-H(ii) 148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Sadar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. According to the allegations as per F.I.R. are that on 14-2-2003, Salamat, Majeed, Rasheed, Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif who were armed with hatchet, Muhammad Hanif armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Afzal armed with iron rod, Rafaqat, Shehbaz alias Naaja and Muhammad Riaz armed with Sotas along with three unknown persons who were empty handed caused injuries to Munir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Shabir Ahmad and Mukhtiar and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that role of the petitioner is identical to that of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif and both of them were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 12-7-2003. Therefore, according to the Rule of Consistency, the petitioner also deserves to the grant of bail. Further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of general nature and no specific injury was attributed to them. It is submitted that none of the offences fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Out of 11 persons who were nominated as accused, role of three persons i.e. petitioner. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif are identical out of whom, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif, co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 12-7-2003 therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is also allowed bail. As the offences so charged do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause and in such like cases as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34 is respectfully relied upon. The petitioner was arrested on 3-12-2004 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and need further enquiry.
5. Under these circumstances, this application is allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50, 000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./R-27/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.