RAHIM BUX Versus State
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No.11/2000 at Police Station Abad Malani, pending trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency given that co-accused attributed similar roles had already been granted bail, notwithstanding the allegation of absconsion. The Sindh High Court held that since four accused including the applicant were armed with lathis and the medical certificate showed only two blunt weapon injuries with no specific attribution to any individual, the applicant's case was identical to that of the co-accused who were previously granted bail. The court laid down the principle that the rule of consistency applies in bail matters and the sole allegation of absconsion is insufficient to deny bail when the case on merits otherwise warrants it. Consequently, the bail was granted.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have been granted bail?
- Does the mere allegation of absconsion alone disentitle an accused from receiving bail when the case on merits is fit for grant of bail?
ORDER
1. The applicant seeks bail in a murder case F.I.R. No.11/2000 Police Station Abad Malani, pending trial before the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. In the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Mullan Jan Muhammad, on 6-5-2000. It is alleged that while he and his brother Mumtaz (deceased and cousin Mooso were sitting on the shop of deceased Mumtaz accused Baghan (presently absconding) armed with a hatchet and five other accused namely Bahadur, Allah Dino, Panjal, Mitho, Shano and the present applicant Rahim Bux all armed with Lathis except accused Bahadur who too is alleged to be armed with hatchet, came and caused hatchet and Lathi blows to deceased Mumtaz, due to an old enmity between the parties. At the conclusion of the investigation all the six persons have been challaned for facing their trial.
2. It is argued by Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mangeram, learned counsel for the applicant that accused Shano, Bahadur, Mitho and Allah Dino have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur whereas same relief has been declined to the applicant by the learned Court of 4th Additional Sessions Court, Shikarpur where the case is presently pending trial. It is further argued that the injury certificate of the deceased shows only two injuries on his person and that the applicant's absconsion for a year or so would not come in his way, as he is entitled to be released on bail on the rule of consistency. He has placed Court on Muhammad Yousuf v. The Court 2000 MLD 1697 and Javaid Anwar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1125.
3. Mr. S. Mahboob Ali Shah learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Court submits that he would oppose the bail plea on the ground of applicant's absconsion for about a year.
4. Admittedly, four accused including the applicant are stated to be armed with Lathies and alleged to have caused Lathi blows to the deceased. The deceased in the medical certificate is shown to have sustained only hard and blunt substance blows; one on the parietal region and the other on left upper arm (a contusion). There is nothing on record to show as to which of the accused caused such injuries to the deceased. The applicant's case appears to be identical to the case of co-accused who have been allowed bail. In my view the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under the rule of consistency. The allegation of absconsion alone would not be sufficient to refuse such concession if on merits the case of applicant appears to be one of bail. Bail is accordingly granted to the applicant subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs.two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
5. H.B.T./R-38/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- AMIR BUX vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 668