GULSHER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail before arrest application filed by the applicant, Gulsher, against whom a criminal case was registered for alleged misappropriation of funds related to a medical store business. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, particularly when a co-accused facing identical allegations and evidence had already been granted bail by the trial court. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle of consistency in judicial proceedings. The Court observed that since the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the applicant had joined the investigation, no useful purpose would be served by denying bail, as the applicant would likely be entitled to post-arrest bail on the same grounds as the co-accused. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that where co-accused with identical evidence have been released on bail, the applicant deserves similar treatment to avoid unnecessary incarceration.
- Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when a co-accused with identical evidence has already been granted bail?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to the grant of bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted?
ORDER
1. ' The application of the applicant for bail before arrest moved before the Sessions Court, Dadu was dismissed and on approaching this Court he was granted interim pre-arrest bail by me on 21-1- 2000. Today the application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to prosecution case S.H.O. As complainant lodged the report on 31-5-1999 stating therein that one Abdul Rahim had filed an application with S.S.P., Dadu wherein he had alleged that an amount of Rs,1,05,000 was given by him to the applicant and co-accused for running medical store and they while running the medical store misappropriated an amount of Rs,7,50,000 and when asked for adjustment they declined to adjust the same. The said application was forwarded to S.H.O. By S. S . P . , Dadu who registered the case against the applicant and one another.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has argued that co-accused with identical evidence has been granted bail after arrest by the trial Court. He has also contended that the police after completing the investigation has submitted the challan against the accused in the Court of 1st Civil Judge and F.C.M., Sehwan, thus, according to him the applicant is even otherwise not required by the police for the purpose of investigation as he has already joined the investigation.
4. ' The learned counsel further submits that no fruitful purpose would be served if the interim bail granted to the applicant is not confirmed and has allowed to be arrest, because after arrest the applicant would be entitled to the grant of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. He in support of his arguments has relied on the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah and another reported in 1986 SCM R 1380, wherein the petitioner challenged the bail granted to co-accused before arrest and did not challenge the bail granted to other accused after arrest though both were fallen in same category and it was held that no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused was cancelled on any technical ground, because after arrest he could again be allowed bail. The learned counsel for the State has not opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has been granted bail after arrest by the trial Court. - ' Mr. Khadim Hussain, Advocate for Abdul Rahim the witness who filed application with S.S.P. He has opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the accused has failed to return the money in spite of undertaking made by him in writing.
5. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The case challaned in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M., Sehwan. Appicant is said to have been joined the investigation and is attending the trial Court. In view of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant I am of the view that the applicant deserves the concession of bail as co-accused with identical evidence is said to have been released on bail by the trial Court. In such circumstances the interim bail granted to the applicant on 21-1-2000 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. This Bail Application No,20 of 2000 is disposed of as such.
Cited by 2 cases
- HABIB AHMED vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 798
- ZAHOOR AHMAD alias BHAWAL SHER and another vs THE STATE 2007 P Cr. L J 1161