PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 37
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 302 & 34--Post arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of set on fire with common intention on complaint’s son and who died later on--Allowing bail petition of co-accused submitted that role of present petitioner is not distinguishable from aforesaid co-accused, who has already allowed bail--On other hand, counsel for plapant has not been able to distinguish case of petitioner with that of aforesaid co-accused--Intention, set on fire son of complainant, has tried to resist contention of counsel for petitioner through an abortive effort--Above referred co-accused is enjoying fruit of bail in form of liberty--Since object of rule of consistency and principle of parity has deep rooted nexus with Articles 9 and 25 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which envisage equality before law and protection of his life and liberty--Since co-accused who was assigned similar role as to present petitioners, has been enlarged on bail, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features, it will not only be in interest of justice but surely in accordance with law that petitioners should be meted out with same treatment as their co-accused has given--Resultantly, instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail. [Para 3] A
Prince Rehan Iftikhar Sheikh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Shaukat Ali Ghauri, APG for State.
Khawaja Ijaz Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 22.11.2018.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 37
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J.
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and another--Appellants
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6112-B of 2018, decided on 22.11.2018.
Order
After having been unsuccessful before the learned inferior Court, the petitioner has tried his luck, for his release on post arrest bail through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. in case FIR
No. 400 of 2017 dated 24.5.2017, offence under Sections 324/302/34, PPC, registered at Police Station new Multan, District Multan in which it is alleged that on 24.5.2017 at about 3.00 a.m., the petitioners along with their co-accused in furtherance of their common intention, set on fire Munwar Shah, son of the complainant who died later-on.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the order dated 11.10.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 4923-B of 2018 (Zafar Iqbal alias Pappu vs. The State etc.) allowing the bail petition of co-accused Zafar Iqbal alias Pappu submitted that role of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from aforesaid co-accused, who has already been allowed bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to distinguish the case of present petitioner with that of the aforesaid co-accused. The prosecution has tried to resist the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner through an abortive effort. The above referred co-accused is enjoying the fruit of bail in the form of liberty. Since the object of rule of consistency and principle of parity has deep rooted nexus with Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which envisage equality before law and protection of his life and liberty. Since the co-accused who was assigned the similar role as to the present petitioners, has been enlarged on bail, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features, it will not only be in the interest of justice but surely in accordance with law that the petitioners should be meted out with the same treatment as their co-accused has given. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments