MUHAMMAD TUFAIL And Another vs THE STATE
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by two petitioners, Muhammad Tufail and Nazar Hussain, who are accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302/148/149 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 a co-accused, Zahid Ali, who was ascribed a similar role of raising a 'Lalkara' (incitement), had already been granted bail by the Court. The State opposed the application, arguing that the petitioners' role was distinguishable because their 'Lalkara' occurred at the beginning of the incident, whereas the co-accused's occurred at the end, and further contended that the trial had already commenced. The Court held that the distinction regarding the timing of the 'Lalkara' was immaterial and that the rule of consistency applied. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where co-accused share similar allegations, the rule of consistency mandates equal treatment in bail matters, regardless of minor factual variations in the timing of their alleged actions.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where co-accused are ascribed similar roles?
- Is the timing of a 'Lalkara' (incitement) a sufficient ground to distinguish the case of one accused from another for the purpose of bail?
- Does the commencement of a trial automatically preclude the grant of bail to an accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Tufail and Nazar Hussain, the petitioners have sought for post-- arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 381 dated 18-11-2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in my order dated 29-10-2002 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2503-B of 2002, the same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. The bail has mainly been sought on the ground that they have been ascribed the mere role of Lalkara in the commission of crime alleged and their co-accused Zahid Ali alias Zahidu with similar allegation has been allowed bail in this Court and so as per rule of consistency, they are also entitled to the same relief.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they in the start of the occurrence have raised Lalkara of the type of command while Zahid Ali alias Zahidu raised Lalkara at the end of the same and so their case is not at par with him and rather is different and distinguishable from him, and that their trial has commenced and in the same evidence of the three Witnesses stands recorded and their side is causing delay in the conclusion of the trial.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that mere Lalkara is ascribed to them in the commission of the crime alleged.
Their co-accused Zahid alias Zahidu has also been ascribed the similar role in the same. He has been allowed bail by this Court on 29-10-2002. This hardly at the present moment is of any importance that if the one raised by them was in the beginning and the other raised in the end of occurrence. So, the rule of consistency will come into play in their case. They therefore, also are entitled to the same relief They are behind the bars for the last about one year The commencement of trial in their case is no ground to refuse them the relief when their case has been found to be one for the bail.
7. In this regard reliance is placed upon the cases of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and another PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585 and Munir v. The State 2002 M LD 1206 Lahore.
8. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- M. ASHRAF vs THE STATE 2007 P Cr. L J 1453