KHATOOR Versus State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Khatoor, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with an F.I.R. registered for the alleged snatching of cattle. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail based on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused, Ghulam Fareed, facing identical allegations, had previously been granted bail by the same Court. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the applicant's case was indeed indistinguishable from that of the co-accused who had already secured bail. The Court held that the rule of consistency is a fundamental principle in bail adjudication, ensuring that similarly situated accused persons receive equitable treatment. Consequently, finding no grounds to distinguish the applicant's case from the co-accused, the Court allowed the application and granted bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety. This judgment reinforces the principle that where the facts and circumstances of an accused's case are identical to those of a co-accused already enlarged on bail, the applicant is entitled to the same relief.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if a co-accused with identical allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to bail applications where the facts of the case against the applicant are similar to those of a co-accused?
ORDER
1. Deferred.
2 and 3. Granted.
4. On 2-8-2002 the complainant went to Police Station, Bahu Khoso and lodged F.I.R. bearing Crime No.34 of 2000 alleging therein that about one year prior to lodging the F.I.R. at 10-00 a.m. the applicant along with two accused persons namely Fareed and Balochan armed with kalashnikovs snatched the cattle from his possession. The co-accused Ghulam Fareed filed bail application before this Court which was granted on 1-3-2002 .
In this background, the learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Ghulam Fareed who has been granted bail by this Court, therefore, on the rule of consistency the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail. The learned Advocate for the State conceded the above position and has no objection to the grant of bail.
The record supports the above contention. On perusal of the record it reveals that the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Ghulam Fareed who has been granted bail by this Court therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency. Consequently, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.one lac on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The application is allowed.
H.B.T./K-45/K Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State 2010 MLD 1724
- RAB NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 62