ABDUL REHMAN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for alleged abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the non-recovery of the abductee. The Court observed that a co-accused, who was similarly situated, had already been granted bail by the Court in a previous order. Emphasizing the principle of consistency in judicial decision-making, the Court held that the petitioner's case was at par with the co-accused who had been enlarged on bail. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the case of an accused is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, the principle of consistency dictates that the accused is entitled to the same treatment.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused similarly situated has already been granted bail?
- Does the non-recovery of an abductee automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J .--Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.515 dated 5-9-2005, registered under sections 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) at Police Station Saddar; Jhang on the application of Haji Fazal Muhammad.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R. is that he along with others had abducted Mst. Bushra wife of the complainant for the purpose of Zina with her and also took away five Tolas Gold ornaments and Rs.20,000 in cash along with them. Hence this case.
3. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute this petition. However, I intend to dispose of the same on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. who being close relative of the main accused had joined hands in the abduction and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and also gone through the record. The co-accused Maqbool Ahmad alias Lali moved an application for bail after arrest through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8601-B of 2005 which has been accepted by this Court vide order dated 14-12-2005. So far the alleged abductee has not been recovered in spite of that the petitioner had remained in police remand and then sent to the judicial lock-up. The main accused in the present case is Shahid. The petitioner is real brother of Maqbool Ahmad alias Lali co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court. The case of the petitioner is at par with him and on the principle of consistency he is also entitled to the same treatment. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial/Illaqa Magistrate.
H.B.T./A-36/L Bail granted.