2002 PLP 1145 (MLD)

Muzaffar‑ul‑Haq for Applicant. Suleman Habibullah for the State. Heard arguments. Learned counsel for applicant submits that or the same set of facts and allegations, the co‑accused Qamaruddin ha; been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, following the rule of consistency, the applicant is also entitled to grant of bail Mr. Suleman Habibullah learned State counsel has no objection grant/confirmation of bail. The F.I.R. in this case bears the contents of application made by Abdul Aziz Muhamamd Ali attorney for Ahmed Jaffar Abdul Rahim and others. According to the F.I.R. in the months of November/December. 1997 the applicant on receiving information went to the house of Jaffar Abdul Rahim (deceased) where he found some persons staying in the house who on enquiry disclosed that they were tenants. The applicant informed the legal heirs of Jaffar Abdul Rahim at Muscat on telephone therefore, one of them namely Ahmed Jaffar came down to Karachi. Later on it transpired that one Khalid Ahmed has filed Suit No.7 of 1998 in the High Court for Specific Performance and permanent injunction claiming that he had purchased the property from Jaffar Abdul Rahim under sale agreement dated 1‑9‑1984. It is further stated that on a complaint made through Consulate General Saltanat Oman, the Commissioner Karachi entrusted the matter to A.C/S.D.M Jamshed Quarter who called both the parties and asked them to produce relevant documents. Thereafter, he submitted .his report to the' effect that the death certificate and heirship certificates were forged and numbers of national identity cards were also forged. Upon the said report the matter was forwarded to the Home Department, Government of Sindh and ultimately F.I.R. was registered mentioning therein the names of Khalid Ahmed, Qamaruddin, Muhammad Iqbal Baloch, Mst. Zulekha Bibi, Mrs. Muhammad Ahmad and Mst. Najma Naz as accused persons. Out of the a abovementioned accused persons, Qamaruddin applied to the learned Trial Court for bail, at the time of hearing of said bail application, Deputy District Attorney did not oppose the bail and the application was granted. Learned Trial Court' while allowing the application made the following observations:‑‑ "I have perused the police papers carefully and find that civil litigation between the parties are pending before Hon'ble High Court. The allegations against accused are that he has prepared forged document/attorney to usurp the property. Learned applicant's counsel further argued that in fact he is attorney of real owner and he is a registered attorney. No fraud has been committed as alleged, challan has been submitted and the accused is no more required for any other purpose. Keeping in view of no objection raised by learned D.D.A. and on consideration that matter is of civil nature between the parties, I hereby grant of bail to the applicant." Learned Trial Court while granting bail to Qamaruddin, pointed out that the civil litigation between the parties is pending in the High Court and on behalf of accused, it is claimed that he is attorney or real owner and apparently the dispute between the parties is civil nature, the same set of facts/allegations would apply to the case of applicant. Learned counsel for applicant is, therefore, correct in submitting that following the rule of consistency the applicant be also admitted to bail. The law is well‑settled on this point. The decision reported in NLR 1996 Criminal 241 (Supreme Court) Fazal Khaliq v. The State, may be cited with advantage in this regard. Consequently, following the rule of consistency and no objection given by learned counsel for State, the application is allowed and the interim bail granted earlier is hereby confirmed. H B.T./M‑332/K Bail granted.