MUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Yaseen, who was charged under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Jampur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly in light of the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail by the trial court. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused were largely unspecified, and the trial court's previous order granting bail to the co-accused had erroneously attributed specific injuries to the petitioner. Finding that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of the co-accused who had already secured bail, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the Court granted the bail petition, emphasizing the principle of consistency in judicial decision-making regarding bail.
- Does the principle of consistency apply to the grant of bail when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been released?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the injuries attributed to them in the FIR are not specifically distinguished from those of a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Yasin son of Fateh Muhammad, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No.56 of 2002 registered at Police Station Jampur, District Rajanpur, on 30-1-2002, under sections 337-A(i) and (ii)/337-F(i) and (iii)/34, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R., the complainant was overpowered by, the petitioner and three other accused. Thereafter the petitioner and Muhammad Ismail, who were armed ,with Chhuris (knives) caused injuries on the person of the complainant.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 28-3-2002 and is in judicial lock-up.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. According to F.I.R. Muhammad Yasin petitioner and Muhammad Ismail accused caused injuries on the face, left foot and, other parts of the body of the complainant. It is added in the F.I.R. that Muhammad Yasin, petitioner also caused injuries on the right hand finger and palm of the complainant. Except injury on the nose, the rest of the injuries are simple in nature and the same have not been specifies as to who caused the same. The allegation against the petitioner and Muhammad Ismail are similar in nature. Muhammad Ismail, co-accuses has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, vide order, dated 24-4-2002, that order has not been challenged so far. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that he has wrongly attributed the injury on the nose of the complainant to Muhammad Yasin petitioner. As according to F.I.R., which is based on the statement of the complainant, the injuries on the face, right foot and the other parts of the body are attributed to Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Ismail without any specific attribution. The petitioner also deserves his release on bail on the principle of consistency. In these circumstances, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.fifty thousand, with one surety in the like amount to the, satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-2407/L Bail granted.