NISAR Versus State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Nisar, who sought post-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2002, registered at Police Station Salehpat. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of bail, particularly in light of the fact that he was not named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and that a co-accused, who was specifically nominated in the F.I.R., had already been granted bail by the trial court. The Court observed that the applicant's name was absent from the F.I.R., and the prosecution's case rested on an alleged subsequent confession. Furthermore, no proceedings under sections 87 or 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been initiated against the applicant despite his status as an absconder in the charge-sheet. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The judgment affirms the principle that where a co-accused has been granted bail, the rule of consistency dictates that other similarly situated accused persons should generally be granted the same relief, provided there is no compelling reason to deny it.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused when a co-accused has already been released on bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they were not named in the initial First Information Report?
- Can bail be granted to an accused labeled as an absconder if no proceedings under sections 87 or 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. GHULAM RABBANI, J .---The name of applicant is not stated in the F.I.R. registered for offences under sections 324, 337-F(ii), 34, P.P.C. and 13(d) Arms Ordinance being crime No.2 of 2002 of Police Station Salehpat on 17-1-2002 about the incident which took place on 15-1-2002 at 0130 hours. The allegations against the applicant are that he had subsequently met with the complainant and disclosed to him that he was involved in the commission of offence; as such he was challaned showing him as an absconder in the charge-sheet.
2. The applicant was arrested on 30-4-2003 and since then he is in custody. Co-accused Muhammad Ashraf who was nominated in the F.I.R. has already been granted bail vide order, dated 19-8-2002 passed by learned trial Court. No proceedings under section 87 or 88 have been taken against the applicant.
3. Learned State counsel states that the applicant may be released on bail considering the rule of consistency.
4. Keeping in view the case of Rab Nawaz v. State (PLD 1996 Lahore 1240), the case of Nadeem v. State (PLD 1996 Karachi 40) and the case of Dosoo v. State (2003 PCr.LJ 933), applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. H.B.T./N-10/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.