AMANULLAH Versus The State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Amanullah, who is facing trial for murder in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2001. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly in light of the rule of consistency, given that co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail, and considering the significant delay in the trial process. The court observed that the F.I.R. attributed the leading role to a co-accused, Ghulam Yasin, who had already been granted bail, and noted that the applicant had been in custody for approximately two and a half years without the charge being framed. Furthermore, the trial court was vacant, leading to indefinite delays. The court held that, under the rule of consistency and given the lack of opposition from the State, the applicant was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail, the principle of consistency dictates that the applicant should be treated similarly, especially when prolonged incarceration without trial occurs.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to the grant of bail when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been released?
- Can prolonged incarceration without the framing of a charge justify the grant of bail?
- Is the absence of a functional trial court a relevant factor in considering a bail application?
ORDER
1. The applicant is facing trial of a murder case before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot in the Sessions Case No. 165 of 2001.
2. In the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Muhammad Murad on 29‑6‑2001, it is alleged that while the complainant party was going to' attend a feast, on the way near village Ali Muhammad within the jurisdiction of Police Station Durrani Mahar (District Jacobabad), at about 6‑30 a.m., they came across accused Ghulam Yasin (on bail) armed with K.K., Muhammad Ibrahim (on bail) armed with a gun, Abdul Rehman with a gun, Abdul Rasheed also armed with a gun and applicant Amanullah armed with a gun, with two others armed with T.T. Pistols, unknown to the complainant party. It is alleged that accused Ghulam Yasin challenged the complainant party and fired at Arbab. Other accused including the applicant followed the suit. Arbab as a result of fire shots fell down crying. The accused were, however, beseeched in the name of Holy Qur'an, where after the accused left the Wardat and went away, seeing also some co‑villagers approaching them. The complainant leaving the P.Ws. with the dead body went to the police station and lodged the report.
3. The police after conducting usual investigation challaned the applicant Amanullah showing other four accused in the Column No.2, who are later stated to have been joined to face the trial along with the applicant.
4. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro that the F. I. R. was delayed by more than two days as the incident is shown to have taken place at 6‑30 a.m. on 27‑6‑2001 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged at 9‑15 hours on 29‑6‑2001. He has vehemently urged that nothing has been shown in the F.I.R. in relation to the explanation for such delayed F.I.R. The learned counsel has pointed out that the F.I.R. shows that the complainant proceeded to the police station immediately after the accused left the Wardat. It was next argued that Amanullah is not shown as the main accused, but accused Ghulam Yasin who is shown as main accused, has been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 1‑9‑2003. It is also argued that all the five accused have been levelled identical allegation of firing. It is informed that co‑accused Ibrahim has been granted bail by the learned trial Court. It was further contended that applicant is in custody since last about 2 and half years, as he was arrested on 24‑7‑2001 and that the charge has not yet been framed. It is added lastly that the learned trial Court is lying vacant and is not known when the vacant Court shall be made functional. It was lastly urged that the applicant may be kept at par to co‑accused, who have been granted bail, as it will be in the fitness of things and rule of consistency.
5. Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, learned Additional Advocate- General while not controverting any of the above contentions, has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant.
6. The plain reading of the F.I.R. reveals that Ghulam Yasin co accused has taken leading role by firing first from his K.K. at the deceased whereas all four accused including the applicant are alleged to have followed the suit. The applicant is in custody since last about 2 and half years without charge. The casein my view, therefore, is one of bail under the rule of consistency.
7. Based upon the above and no objection statement from the learned Additional Advocate‑General, I would allow bail to the applicant Amanullah subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. two hundreds thousand and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
8. H.B.T./A‑151/K Bail granted.