2003 PLP 3195 (YLR)

Maher Muhammad Afzal Mirali for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 21st January, 2003. Muhammad Tufail and Nazar Hussain, the petitioners have sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 381 dated 18‑11‑2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal.

2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in my order dated 29‑10‑2002 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2503‑B of 2002, the same, therefore, are not repeated here.

3. The bail has mainly been sought on the ground that they have been ascribed the mere role of Lalkara in the commission of crime alleged and their co‑accused Zahid Ali alias Zahidu with similar allegation has been allowed bail in this Court and so as per rule of consistency, they are also entitled to the same relief.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they in the start of the occurrence have raised Lalkara of the type of command while Zahid Ali alias Zahidu raised Lalkara at the end of the same and so their case is not at par with him and rather is different and distinguishable from him, and that their trial has commenced and in the same evidence of the three Witnesses stands recorded and their side is causing delay in the conclusion of the trial.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

6. The fact remains that mere Lalkara is ascribed to them in the commission of the crime alleged. Their co‑accused Zahid alias Zahidu has also been ascribed the similar role in the same. He has been allowed bail by this Court on 29‑10‑2002. This hardly at the present moment is of any importance that if the one raised by them was in the beginning and the other raised in the end of occurrence. So, the rule of consistency will come into play in their case. They therefore, also are entitled to the same relief They are behind the bars for the last about one year The commencement of trial in their case is no ground to refuse them the relief when their case has been found to be one for the bail.

7. In this regard reliance is placed upon the cases of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and another PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585 and Munir v. The State 2002 MLD 1206 Lahore.

8. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑2101/L Bail granted.