MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
This petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the principal accused caused the death of the deceased on the abetment and conspiracy of the petitioner and other co-accused. The petitioner contended that the only allegation against him was that of conspiracy, and a co-accused with similar allegations had already been granted bail by the High Court. The High Court observed that the petitioner's participation in the conspiracy was yet to be proved at trial. Applying the rule of consistency, as the allegations against the petitioner were identical to those against the co-accused who was already on bail, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the bail application was accepted subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond and joining the investigation.
- Whether an accused charged with conspiracy is entitled to bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with identical allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does the mere allegation of conspiracy, which is yet to be proved at trial, warrant the denial of post-arrest bail where a similarly placed co-accused is on bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No.664 of 1999 on 13-10-1999, Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.
2. Allegation unfolded in the First Information Report are that one Farman A.I and Pervez injured deceased with, fire-arm weapons, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It is alleged that accused Farman and Pervez caused the death of Shaukat A.I on the abatement of present petitioners and one co-accused Ashiq A.I. Motive of occurrence is that Ashiq A.I co-accused was slapped and forbidden by the deceased not to come in the chowk. It was stated that the occurrence has taken place due to the conspiracy by the petitioner alongwith Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Iqbal etc.
3. Bail was rejected- by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala on 12-5-2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that only allegation against the petitioner is that of a conspiracy and further Muhammad Hussain co-accused in similar allegation was allowed bail by this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
5. It is yet to be proved whether the petitioner participated in the conspiracy and following the rule of consistency, because the allegation against him are similar, petitioner is entitled to the bail.
6. For the reasons, I accept the application and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation.