MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by petitioners Muhammad Aslam and Shaukat, who were implicated in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific roles attributed to them and the principle of consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail. The petitioner Aslam, though armed with a .12 bore gun, was alleged to have only inflicted butt blows, while the petitioner Shaukat was alleged to have used a danda. No recovery was effected from either petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioners' case was on a similar footing to that of a co-accused, Gulfam, who had previously been granted bail. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail application was accepted, and the petitioners were directed to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of the Court.
- Does the principle of consistency apply when granting bail to co-accused who share similar allegations?
- Does a case fall under the category of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no specific fire-arm injury is attributed to an accused armed with a gun?
- Is the absence of recovery a relevant factor in determining bail entitlement?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMAMD SHARIF, J .---I had already dealt with Criminal Miscellaneous No.9570-B of 2005 vide order dated 26-1-2005, application of Muhammad Abbas was dismissed as he was armed with fire-arm and caused injury to the injured P.W. Gulfam co-accused was armed with Danda and only one injury was attributed to him so his application was accepted. Then Crl. Misc. No.4568-B of 2005 filed by Iftikhar etc. was dealt with by this Court and vide order dated 4-7-2005, their application was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the F.I.R. Aslam petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and caused butt blows to Amjad Ali injured P.W. while Shaukat petitioner caused Danda blows to Mushtaq and Shahbaz P.Ws. that Aslam petitioner did not fire at any person although he was armed with .12 bore gun; that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioners; that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that they did not even touch the deceased; that case of the petitioners is of further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in the first investigation conducted by DSP the petitioners were found guilty but later on declared them innocent; that now the investigation has been transferred to Shaukat Ali, D.S.P. Investigation but he has not given his findings. He admits that no recovery was effected from the petitioners; that case of petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Aslam petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun but he did not cause any fire-arm injury to any injured P.W. He caused butt blows to Amjad Ali injured P.W. As far as Shaukat petitioner is concerned, he along with Waqas and Asif caused injuries to Mushtaq and Shahbaz injured P.Ws. Their case is on similar footing to that of their co-accused Gulfam who had already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 26-1-2005, therefore following the law of consistency this petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.
H.B.T./M-687/L Bail granted.