ALI MURAD Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ali Murad, who is charged with offences under sections 302, 337-HA(ii), 337-Fi, 147, 148, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with Crime No. 71 of 2000. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the principles of hardship and delay, particularly given that a co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail. The court observed that the charge against the applicant had not yet been framed and noted the prolonged vacancy of the trial court, which contributed to the delay in proceedings. The State Counsel conceded the bail application on these grounds. Consequently, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the principle of consistency applies where a co-accused with a similar role has been granted relief, and that prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial constitutes hardship justifying bail. The bail was granted subject to the furnishing of solvent sureties.
- Does the principle of consistency apply to bail applications where a co-accused with identical allegations has already been granted bail?
- Can prolonged delay in the framing of a charge and the vacancy of a trial court constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-HA(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-Fi, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The applicant Ali Murad son of Shamsuddin Pathan, involved in Crime No.71 of 2000, P.S. Rustam, offence under sections 302, 337-HA(ii) and Fi, 147, 148, 114, P.P.C.
2. Claims bail on the ground of delay and hardship in addition to fact that other co-accused Shamsuddin was extended bail. According to learned counsel case of applicant is identical to that of Shamsuddin who was extended benefit of bail in Cr.B.A. No.98 of 2003, by another member of this Bench, vide order, dated 20-1-2003. Charge, in this case has not yet been framed. Allegation against the present applicant is of Lathi blow on the person of Samar Khan. He is alleged to have received four injuries, one injury is attributed to the applicant as was the case of Shamsuddin.
3. Learned State Counsel fairly concedes the bail on the ground of delay Further co-accused persons appears to be enjoying the benefit of bail.
4. Under circumstances, looking at the fact that no charge is yet been framed and for the fact that Court is lying vacant since 3-7-2003, as reported in the bail order in Cr.B.A. No.98 of 2003, present applicant is also extended benefit of bail on the plea of hardship and delay, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount.
5. In the case the applicant misuses the concession of bail, the learned trial Court may cancel the bail.
6. H. B. T./A-112/K Bail granted.