Rule of consistency is not applicable in all criminal cases
PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 905 · Peshawar High Court
This case involved a bail application by Yousaf Khan, who was accused in a shooting that killed a police constable and injured another during a police patrol in Lakki Marwat in June 2010. According to the FIR, police chasing a suspicious vehicle were ambushed by armed men who opened fire, killing one constable and wounding another, before the attackers fled with police weapons.
Yousaf Khan sought bail, arguing that a co-accused, Niaz Ali, had already been granted bail, so he deserved the same treatment under the principle of consistency. He also argued he wasn't properly identified since his father's name was missing from the FIR, and that a witness statement conflicted with the FIR account.
The Peshawar High Court rejected these arguments. It found that the FIR named two groups of accused: five identified persons and five unknown persons. The co-accused who got bail belonged to the unknown group, while Yousaf Khan was specifically named and directly charged with firing the fatal shots. Since his situation was factually different, the rule of consistency did not apply to him.
The court also noted the FIR was filed within thirty minutes of the incident, eyewitness evidence linked him to the crime, and he had remained a fugitive without adequately explaining his absence. Based on these findings, the court dismissed his bail petition, ruling him ineligible for release pending trial.
This case matters because it clarifies that bail granted to one co-accused doesn't automatically entitle others to bail when their roles and evidence differ significantly.
یہ کیس یوسف خان کی ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق تھا، جسے جون 2010 میں لکی مروت میں پولیس گشت کے دوران ایک فائرنگ کے واقعے میں ملزم بنایا گیا تھا، جس میں ایک پولیس کانسٹیبل ہلاک اور دوسرا زخمی ہوا تھا۔ ایف آئی آر کے مطابق، ایک مشکوک گاڑی کا پیچھا کرنے والی پولیس پر مسلح افراد نے گھات لگا کر فائرنگ کی، جس سے ایک کانسٹیبل جاں بحق اور دوسرا زخمی ہو گیا، اور حملہ آور پولیس کے ہتھیار لے کر فرار ہو گئے۔
یوسف خان نے ضمانت کی درخواست میں یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ ایک شریک ملزم نیاز علی کو پہلے ہی ضمانت دی جا چکی ہے، اس لیے اصولِ مماثلت کے تحت اسے بھی وہی سلوک ملنا چاہیے۔ اس نے یہ بھی دلیل دی کہ اس کی مناسب شناخت نہیں کی گئی کیونکہ ایف آئی آر میں اس کے والد کا نام درج نہیں تھا، اور یہ کہ ایک گواہ کا بیان ایف آئی آر کے بیان سے متصادم تھا۔
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے یہ دلائل مسترد کر دیے