Proem Qazi Muhammad Farooq and EHADZEB alias BHOBI vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner was accused of accepting a significant sum of money from the complainant under the false pretense of arranging travel to the United States for the complainant's sons. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail was justified and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioner was reasonably connected to the alleged offense. Furthermore, the Court held that the rule of consistency could not be invoked because the petitioner's case was factually distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can the rule of consistency be invoked for bail if the cases of the co-accused are not at par?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's discretionary order refusing bail when the accused is reasonably connected to the offense?
- Section 17, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Immigration Ordinance 1979
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen from the order, dated 21-1-2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioner's bail application arising out of a case under sections 17/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979, registered on 12-10-2001 vide F.I.R. No,361 of 2001, was turned down.
2. The accusation against the petitioner in brief is that he alongwith his co-accused had taken an amount of Rs,5,75,000 for sending two sons of the complainant to United States of America but the needful was not done.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record we are not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the High Court refusing bail as the peitioner is reasonably connected with the offence for which he has been chased. As regards the rule of consistency it would suffice to say that the sane cannot be pressed into service as the petitioner's case is not at par with that of his co-accused Professor Attaullah Joseph who has been admitted to bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and .