NAEEM SAJID Versus State
This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail in a case of Qatl-i-Amd, where the petitioners were accused of murdering the complainant's father. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, particularly in light of the rule of consistency and the existence of a cross-version. The Supreme Court, in this dissenting opinion, held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail. The Court observed that the petitioners were expressly nominated in the FIR with specific roles attributed to them, and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court held that the rule of consistency is only applicable when the case of the accused is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, which was not established here. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no grounds for further inquiry existed. The principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the Court must tentatively assess evidence without conducting a deeper appreciation of merits, and bail should be refused where prima facie evidence connects the accused to a serious offence.
- Is the rule of consistency in bail matters applicable when the role of the accused is not identical to that of a co-accused who has been granted bail?
- Does an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the scope of the Court's assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
- Under what specific grounds can post-arrest bail be granted for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.--- I have had the privilege of going through the order ("majority decision") authored by my learned Colleague Mr. Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. With great respect, I do not find myself in agreement to it for the facts and reasons mentioned herein.
2. Through the present petition, the petitioners are seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No.663/2023 dated 25.05.2023 registered under Sections 302,148 and 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara.
3. Allegations leveled against the petitioners are that on 25.05.2024 at about 05:45 P.M came armed at the fields of the deceased with three tractors. They thrashed the deceased (complainant's father) with clubs and threw him in front of the tractor thus caused his death.
4. Perusal of the record indicates that all the petitioners are expressly nominated in the FIR with specific roles attributed to them. They collectively caused injuries to the deceased Attique-ur-Rehman and threw him in front of the tractor. The petitioners have not disputed the time, date, and place of occurrence or their presence at the time of occurrence has been denied.
5. This court in the case of Bakhti Rahman, 1 ruled as under:
"At the bail stage, the Court has to tentatively form an opinion by assessing the evidence available on record without going into merits of the case. The deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be gone into and it is only to be seen whether the accused is prima facie connected with the commission of offence or not. In order to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist or not the Courts not only have to look at the material placed before them by the prosecution, but see whether some tangible evidence is available against the accused or not to infer guilty".
6. As far as contention of the learned counsel regarding rule of consistency is concerned, it is trite law that the rule of consistency is applicable only when one person's case is at par with the rest of the accused whose post-arrest bail has been granted. This is not the case at hand and petitioners have played an active role in causing the death of the deceased.
7. The rule of consistency was explained by this court in the case of Muhammad Atif, 2 in the following words:
"The rule of consistency in bail matters is attracted and applied after the grant of bail to a co-accused. Grant of bail by a court considers several factors like the contents of the F1R, the incriminating material collected by the police during investigation, the past history of the accused, etc. The grounds which form the basis for the grant of bail to a co-accused is thus the benchmark for grant of bail to the accused under the rule of consistency. Therefore, the court has to assess whether the role of the accused in the FIR, examined in the background of the material collected by the Police is the same as that of the co-accused, who has been granted bail. It is this congruence in the case of the co-accused and the accused that attracts the rule of consistency."
Therefore, in view of the above judgment, the rule of consistency is not attracted in the case at hand.
8. The MLC available on record fully supports the prosecution case. There is no contradiction between the medical report and the version put forth by the complainant.
9. The majority judgment granted bail on the ground of cross-version. However, that cross-version was registered after the delay of one month and 03 days. Firstly, Petitioners filed the first post-arrest bail before the trial court on 27.05.2023 and they never mentioned about the alleged occurrence as mentioned in cross-version.
10. The offence of Qatl-i-Amd alleged in the present case, being punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302, P.P.C., falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(l), Cr.P.C. In the offences that fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., the post-arrest bail is granted on three grounds: (i) under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., on the ground of the accused being a minor, or a woman, or a sick or infirm person; (ii) under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial beyond the period prescribed for no fault of the accused; and (iii) under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., on the ground of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The present case, by tentative assessment, does not seem to be one of the further inquiry. This Court has refused to grant the bail in similar circumstances as in the case Bakhti Rehman v. State (2023 SCMR 1068) and Muhammad Atif v. State 2024 SCMR 1071).
8. In view of above facts and circumstances, petitioners have failed to make out a case for the grant of bail. Impugned judgment of the High Court is well-reasoned, has considered all the factual and legal aspects, thus, needs no interference.
9. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed and leave refused.
MWA/N-10/SC Bail granted.