MUHAMMAD ILYAS and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons, Muhammad Ilyas and Fayyaz Ahmed, in a case involving charges under sections 324, 337A(i), 337F(i)(vi), 148, 149, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that co-accused persons with similar allegations had previously been granted bail. The prosecution argued that the petitioners were vicariously liable for the murder and injuries due to their presence and possession of lethal weapons. The Court held that since the medical evidence indicated that the injured witnesses sustained only blunt weapon injuries, which contradicted the specific allegations of sharp-edged weapon use against the petitioners, the case required further inquiry. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that they deserved the same treatment as the co-accused who had already been released. The key principle established is that where the prosecution's specific allegations regarding the nature of injuries are not supported by medical reports, the rule of consistency dictates that similarly situated co-accused should be granted bail.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to co-accused persons when the medical evidence contradicts the specific allegations made against them?
- Is a case for further inquiry made out when the weapon attributed to an accused does not match the injuries described in the medico-legal report?
- Can bail be granted to accused persons charged with vicarious liability under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if similarly situated co-accused have already been released?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RIAZ KAYANI, J.---Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Saleem and Fayyaz Ahmed son of Zafar Ullah Khan seek bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,356 with Police Station Pasrur, District Sialkot on 18-6-1999 under sections 324, 337A(i), 337F(i)(vi) read with sections 148, 149 and section 302, P.P.C.
2. Allegation against the petitioners is that Ilyas armed with 222 bore rifle and Ijaz armed with Kulhari caused injuries to Waheed and Abdul Haq P.Ws. Whereas the deceased was done to death by Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Khan.
3. Earlier in Criminal Miscellaneous No,303-B of 2000 we allowed bail to Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Afzal. Allegation against the Irfan was that he while armed with Kulhari caused injuries to Waheed and Abduul Haq P.Ws. On our scrutiny of the record, we found that Waheed and Abdul Haq sustained 8 and 6 injuries on their persons all caused with blunt weapon. Since there was no injury caused with sharp-edged weapon we extended the facility of bail to Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Afzal. In the instant petition the allegation is that Ilyas armed with 222 rifle and Fayyaz armed with Kulhari caused injuries to the same P.Ws. Which was not borne out from the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Rule of Consistency fully applies to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the State aided by counsel for the complainant have strenuously contended that though the role attributed to Ilyas and Fayyaz may be to cause injuries to the injured yet vacariously they are also responsible for causing injuries to the deceased as their mere presence armed with lethal weapons lends encouragement to the co-accused to cause the death of the deceased and injuries to the P.Ws.
4. As to how far in the presence of Ilyas and Fayyaz armed with. 222 rifle and Kulhari respectively facilitates the murder of the deceased and murderous assault on the injured P.Ws. Is yet to be seen at the time of recording of evidence. Presently since attribution of injuries does not fit to the medico-legal report issued by the doctor stating that the injured had blunt weapon injuries we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry and probe and deserve meting not the same treatment as given to the earlier accused in Criminal Miscellaneous No,303/B of 2000 we allow their application and extend the facility of bail in their favour provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge.