BALOO alias PIYAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Baloo alias Piyar Ali, who was charged in connection with an FIR registered under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others committed robbery and abduction. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that co-accused had been acquitted or previously granted bail, and considering the applicant was not nominated in the FIR and no identification test was conducted. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, applying the principle of consistency and noting that the case required further inquiry. The Court relied on the precedent that long abscondance can be disregarded under specific conditions, particularly when the case against an accused necessitates further investigation. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of a bond.
- Does the acquittal of co-accused entitle an absconding accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
- Can long abscondance be ignored in a criminal case if the matter requires further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they were not nominated in the FIR and no identification test was conducted?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' Applicant seeks bail in Crime No,68 of 1992 of Mehar lodged under section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case of prosecution are that on 6-5-1992 at about 12-30 night complainant and other inmates woke up on the noise of the door and saw 11-12 persons armed with kalashnikovs, rifles and guns standing in the courtyard. They took up licensed gun of complainant and robbed cash of Rs,5,000, golden ornaments valuing Rs,10,800. Thereafter they forcibly dragged Manzoor Hussain the nephew of complainant and took away him with themselves. In the morning complainant party tracked the foot-prints which was up to Pairo Protective Bund. They started search privately but could not get clue and ultimately lodged the F.I.R.
3. On 15-9-1992.
4. ' It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro that in this case accused Nazeer, Hubdar, Badar alias Dhamako, Shahnawaz, Mehar Ali and Ahmed Ali were challaned and had been acquitted by the trial Court. According to him applicant was absconder. Irrespective of the applicant co- accused Allah Bux and Ali Hassan the absconders were arrested, out of them Allah Bux and Ali Hassan have been granted bail. He further argues that since some of the co-accused have been acquitted and others have been enlarged on bail as such the case of applicant is on identical footings with others and the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. He lastly contended that the applicant was neither nominated in the F.I.R. Nor any identification test was held after his arrest, as such his case requires further inquiry. In support he relies upon 1985 SCM R 382 and 1989 PCr.LJ 1910. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul and others reported in 1985 SCM R 382 has laid the dictum that long abscondance can be ignored under certain conditions. One of the same being the case of further inquiry. Applying the above dictum to -the case of applicant we feel that he is entitled to the grant of bail.
5. ' On the other side Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto does not controvert the arguments and raises no objection to the grant of bail.
6. ' Accordingly we allow bail to the applicant who shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs,2, 00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- AKRAM alias AKROO vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 1132
- MANZOOR vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2444
- HAZOOR BAKHSH Versus STATE 2001 YLR 2089
- GHULAM QADIR Versus STATE 2001 YLR 623