DAWOOD SHAH BAIG vs THE STATE and anothers
This bail application arose from a criminal case registered under Sections 506, 342, 147, 149, 457, 458, and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 5 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail after lower courts dismissed his previous applications. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused. The Court observed that the complainant's supplementary statement, which implicated the petitioner, contradicted the initial F.I.R. and provided a motive that did not align with the original prosecution narrative, thereby bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry. Furthermore, noting that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail, the Court applied the rule of consistency. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, holding that the petitioner was entitled to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does a contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and a subsequent supplementary statement justify granting bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency if a co-accused with a similar role has already been released?
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
' Having been involved in a case vide F.I.R. No,62 dated 2-8-2003 registered under sections 506, 342, 147, 149, 457, 458 and 365, P.P.C. Read with sections 5 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Lutkoh District Chitral, the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Chitral but his application was dismissed vide order dated 23-10-2003. He then moved the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chitral for his release on bail but his application also met the same fate when it was dismissed on 20-10-2003. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. I have heard the arguments of Messrs Mazullah Barkandi, the learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner, Sajid Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record of the case. The complainant Sudair Khan present in Court showed inability to engage a counsel.
3. No one was initially charged in the F.I.R. It was on 3-10-2003 that supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded but in the said statement he stated that on 21-8-1983 at 1-00 a.m., he was guarding the water of canal and when in the morning he reached his house, there were many people assembled in front of his house who told him that his wife had been abducted by the accused persons. He, therefore, charged Dawood Shah petitioner, Anwar and three other unknown persons. The motive put-forth in the statement was that his cousin, namely, Hussain Khan had abducted one girl from Pathan Colony Karachi and the accused-petitioner Dawood Shah used to give him threat on telephone for production of the abductee as well as Hussain Khan. In retaliation, his wife had been abducted. The supplementary statement recorded by the complainant is not in consonance with the prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R., hence this fact alone is sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry.
4. Besides, co-accused, namely, Anwar who had been assigned similar role, has already been released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Chitral vide order dated 8-9-2003. Keeping in view the rule of consistency, the accused-petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.
5. I, therefore, allow the application in hand and direct that the accused-petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (rupees two lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Chitral, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.