Pakistan Case LawMEHBOOB-UL-HASSAN Versus THE STATE
The petitioner, a police constable, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his bail application in a criminal case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued for the grant of bail based on the principle of consistency, noting that a co-accused, Farooq, had been granted bail by the Allaqa Magistrate. The Supreme Court examined the record and distinguished the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused. It noted that the co-accused was granted bail because no recovery was made from him and the complainant had filed an affidavit asserting his innocence. Conversely, the petitioner was positively identified during an identification parade, and the robbed property was recovered from his possession. Consequently, the Court held that the principle of consistency did not apply, as the evidentiary basis for the co-accused's bail was absent in the petitioner's case. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the principle of consistency automatically entitle a co-accused to bail if another co-accused has been granted bail?
- Is the recovery of robbed property from an accused a valid ground for refusing bail?
- Can bail be denied if an accused is correctly identified during an identification parade?
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J---Mehboob-ul-Hassan petitioner, a police constable, seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 8-5-1994 whereby his bail application in a case under section 392 of the P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore vide FIR No, 79 dated 7-2-1994 was dismissed.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his named co-accused Farooq was admitted to bail by the Allaqa Magistrate, therefore, in view of principle of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
3.After considering the above submission in the light of material available on the record we do not consider it a fit case for interference by this Court. Co-accused Farooq was allowed bail on the ground that nothing was recovered from him and the complainant had sworn an affidavit to the effect that he was innocent and had been named in the FIR by the police. The petitioner was correctly identified at an identification parade and the robbed property was recovered from him. Consequently this petition fails and is dismissed.