MUHAMMAD TUFAIL And 2 Others vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal bail petition filed by Muhammad Tufail and two others seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of aerial firing and the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused was granted bail. The court held that since only aerial firing is attributed to the petitioners, their case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby warranting the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is only attributed aerial firing and the case calls for further inquiry into their guilt under the statutory provisions governing bail, the rule of consistency and further inquiry principles justify the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person attributed only with aerial firing is entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of further inquiry?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused facing similar allegations has been granted bail?
- When does a criminal case attract the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as petitioners are concerned aerial firing is attributed to them, that Liaqat Ali co-accused was allowed bail in the circumstances, following the law of consistency demands that same treatment should be extended to the present petitioners.
2. Learned State Counsel on the other hand opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. Specific roles were attributed to them and they were vicarious liable and their case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case only aerial firing is attributed to the petitioners. So their case is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners. In this view of the matter this petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial Court.