Bail must be allowed when co-accused gets a bail
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Nausher Ali, who was accused, along with two co-accused, of fatally assaulting Murid Hussain. The FIR alleged he fired a gunshot that hit the deceased in the buttocks. He had earlier been denied bail by a lower court and approached the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) seeking bail after arrest.
The key issue was that his two co-accused, who faced similar allegations, had already been granted bail by the same High Court in earlier separate orders. One of those co-accused, Muhammad Ali, was accused of causing an identical type of injury to the same part of the deceased's body. The only real difference between his case and the petitioner's was that a weapon was recovered from the petitioner, while nothing was recovered from the co-accused who got bail. The court also noted that the FIR was lodged 11 days after the incident, and the victim died 60 days later from gangrene, raising questions about the directness of the cause of death.
Given these similarities and unresolved questions, the court held that the case required "further inquiry," a standard under the law that allows bail when guilt isn't clearly established. Applying the principle of consistency - that similarly placed co-accused should be treated alike - the court granted bail to the petitioner too, subject to bail bonds and sureties. This case illustrates how courts maintain fairness by treating similarly situated accused persons consistently in bail matters.
یہ مقدمہ ناصر علی نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جس پر دو دیگر ملزمان کے ساتھ مل کر مرید حسین کو قتل کرنے کا الزام تھا۔ ایف آئی آر کے مطابق اس نے فائر کیا تھا جو مقتول کی چوتڑ پر لگا تھا۔ نچلی عدالت پہلے ہی اس کی ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد کر چکی تھی، جس پر اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کے لیے لاہور ہائی کورٹ (ملتان بینچ) سے رجوع کیا۔
اس مقدمے کا اہم نکتہ یہ تھا کہ اس کے دونوں ساتھی ملزمان، جن پر اسی نوعیت کے الزامات تھے، اسی ہائی کورٹ سے پہلے ہی علیحدہ علیحدہ احکامات کے ذریعے ضمانت حاصل کر چکے تھے۔ ان میں سے ایک ملزم، محمد علی، پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے مقتول کے جسم کے اسی حصے پر عین اسی نوعیت کی چوٹ پہنچائی تھی۔ درخواست گزار اور اس ملزم کے مقدمے میں واحد فرق یہ تھا کہ درخواست گزار سے ایک ہتھیار برآمد ہوا تھا جبکہ جس ملزم کو ضمانت ملی تھی اس سے کچھ بھی برآمد نہیں ہوا تھا۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی نوٹ کیا ک
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 217 [Multan Bench Multan] Present: Abdul Sattar Goraya, J. NAUSHER ALI--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl. Misc. No. 2918-B of 2009, decided on 23.7.2009. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-L, 109, 34--Bail after arrest--Rule of consistency--Further inquiry--Co-accued already on bail--Held: Allegation of causing fire-arm injuries on the buttocks of the deceased on present petitioner and his co-accused already bailed out--Distinguishing feature between co-accused and present petitioner is that weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner whereas no recovery was affected from his co-accused--FIR was registered with delay of 11 days and the deceased according to the medical report died on account of gangrene after sixty days. Except on one point of recovery, the role attributed to the petitioner and to co-accused is admissible--Case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. --Bail allowed. [P. 218] A Mr. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Zia, DPG for State. Mr. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing: 23.7.2009. Order Petitioner has been reported against in case FIR No. 378 dated 10.7.2008 under Sections 302/324/337-L(ii)/109/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Noor Shah District Sahiwal. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused Anwar Ali and Muhammad Ali armed with deadly weapons assaulted upon Murid Hussain deceased. Petitioner caused a gun-shot injury on the buttocks of the deceased. Petitioner applied for bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8.7.2009.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Co-accused of the petitioner namely Anwar Ali has been allowed bail by this Court on 18.3.2009 in Crl. Misc. No. 88-B/2009 whereas the other co-accused Muhammad Ali was allowed bail on 2.6.2009 in Crl. Misc. No. 1316-B/2009. It is alleged that Muhammad Ali and the present petitioner both caused fire-arm injuries on the buttocks of the deceased. The distinguishing feature between Muhammad Ali and the present petitioner is that weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner whereas no recover was affected from his co-accused. The FIR was registered with delay of 11 days and the deceased according to the medical report died on account of gangrene after sixty days. Except on one point of recovery, the role attributed to the petitioner and to Muhammad Ali is assimilable.
4. For whatever it has been stated above, case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (M.S.A.) Bail allowed.