FAZAL MIR vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed before the Peshawar High Court by an accused charged under Sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in FIR No. 26 registered at Police Station Dawaba, Hangu. The core legal question before the High Court was whether an accused person who remained absconding for a considerable period is entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of parity/rule of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail. The Peshawar High Court accepted the bail application, holding that co-accused had already been admitted to bail and that the petitioner could not be discriminated against, as he was entitled to fair and equal treatment inter se. Relying on binding precedent, the court established the principle that the rule of consistency applies to entitle an accused to bail where co-accused in the same case have been granted bail, requiring equal and fair treatment.
- Does the rule of consistency entitle an accused to post-arrest bail when co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the ground of abscondance if co-accused are already admitted to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Fazal Mil petitioner, one of the accused persons in case F.I.R. No,26 registered at Police Station Dawaba (Hangu) on 16-1-1992 under sections 302/324, P.P.C., has been refused the concession of bail by Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Hangu vide order dated 26-6-2002. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer and in support of the bail application Mr. Attaullah Khan, Advocate for the petitioner contends that co-accused in this case have already been admitted to bail and the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail in view of the principle of consistency. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Fayaz, Advocate for the complainant assisted Malik Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner remained fugitive from law for sufficient long time and his conduct does not qualify him for the concession of bail.
2. The petitioner, as stated above, is one of the accused persons charged for murder of Jalat Khan father of Gul Zamir complainant. The complainant is stated to have.Gone abroad and his whereabouts are not known. The co-accused have already been allowed bail in this case. I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that his client could not be discriminated and had to be treated inter se fairly and equally. Fazil Khaliq alias Hafiz v. The State 1996 SCM R 364.
3. The application is accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.