JUMO and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Jumo and Qurban, who were accused of causing injuries to the complainant's party following a civil dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, considering the nature of the injuries inflicted and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused. The Court observed that while the applicant Jumo was alleged to have caused a head injury declared as Shajah-e-Madiah, the offence was not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or a ten-year term. Furthermore, the applicant Qurban's case was found to be identical to that of co-accused who had already been granted bail by the trial court. The Court held that both applicants were entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies when an accused's case is indistinguishable from that of co-accused who have already been granted bail, and that bail should generally be granted for non-bailable offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to the grant of bail when the case of an applicant is similar to that of co-accused already granted bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail for an offence under Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Brief facts giving rise to the pre-arrest bail application are that on 16-4-2004 at 9-30 p.m. The applicant Jumo armed with iron rod, applicant Qurban armed with lathi and other two accused with hatchets caused injuries to injured Mazhar son of complainant Haji Muhammad Parial near Post Office Khairpur Nathan Shah. The allegation against the applicant Jumo is of causing iron rod injury on the head of the injured Mazhar and general allegations have been levelled against applicant Qurban and other accused of causing lathi injuries to the injured. The incident is alleged to have taken place because of civil suit filed by the complainant party against the accused party for recovery of amount. A bail application was moved before the trial Court but the same was dismissed. Hence the present application.
2. ' I have heard Advocate for the parties. Learned Advocate for the applicants has stated that the injured has received 10 injuries out of which only one injury on the head has been declared Shajah- e-Madiah punishable under section 337-A(ii) and imprisonment provided therein is of five years; that the other injuries are falling under bailable offences; that the case of the applicant Qurban is similar to that of two co-accused who have been granted bail by the trial Court; that the head injury attributed to the applicant Jumo is non-bailable, but it is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Case has been challaned and it is not known as to when it is to be completed. He has relied upon the cases of Iqbal Muhammad Saeed and others v. The State and 2 others 1992 PCr.LJ 2086, Faiz Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Feroze and others 1986 SCM R 1380.
3. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the names of applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R., that the motive has been assigned to them; that there is mala fide on the part of applicants as they gave reckless blows to the injured. He has relied upon the cases of as Allandino and 6 others v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 135, Shabeer Ahmed alias Shifli v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1348, Rajoo and another v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 526 and Murad Khan v. Fazl-e-Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82.
4. ' Learned State Counsel has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant Qurban on the ground that his case is similar to that of two co-accused who have been granted bail by the trial Court, but raised objection to the grant of bail to the applicant Jumo on the ground that specific role of causing rod injury on the person of injured has been assigned to Jumo which has been declared Shajah-eMadiah.
5. ' I have given due consideration to the argument, gone through the material available on the record and case-law cited at the bar. I find that the injured has received 10 injuries out of them only one injury is declared Shajah-e-Madiah punishable under section 337-A(iii) which is non-bailable.
6. Its punishment is five years. While other injuries have been declared as bailable. Case of applicant Qurban is similar to that of two co-accused who have been granted bail by the trial Court, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency.
7. As regard the case of the applicant Jumo, it has been alleged that he caused iron rod injury to the injured for which punishment provided is five years. Offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or even ten years. The case has been challaned and it is not known as to when the case would reach to its logical end. In the light of what has been discussed above, the interim pre-arrest' bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
8. Order accordingly.