2026 PLP 982 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

The petitioner/accused namely Muhammad Iqbal has filed the instant petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No.04/2025 registered under sections 161, 109 P.P.C and 5(2) PCA 1947 at Police Station FIA/CC Sub Circle Skardu.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner/accused has filed this second bail petition on the fresh ground of rule of consistency, whereas his previous bail petition was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 24.06.2025.

3. Succinctly, the case of the petitioner/accused as reflected in the FIR is that on written complaint of the complainant namely Faizan Arif, the FIA authorities lodged an FIR on 03.06.2025 agaisnt the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused alleging therein that the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused have taken bribery/ illegal gratification amounting to Rs.300,000/- from the complainant namely Faizan Arif on the pretext to adjust electricity bills of Byarsa Hotel, Kachura Skardu.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that this Court has released co-accused of the present petitioner namely Arif Hussain on bail, vide order dated 18.09.2025, as such the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the role of the present petitioner/accused is identical and similar with the above named co-accused nominated in the FIR as such the principle of rule of consistency clearly applies to the case of present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the petitioner/accused had to give the alleged recovered money to his co-accused as per phone contents of FIR and the petitioner had also received phone call of the co-accused during the alleged occurrence stating to reach the house of co-accused with the alleged bribed money, hence the role of the petitioner and his co-accused is same and identical as such the petitioner/accused is entitled for concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied upon reported judgments of superior Courts reported as PLD 2017 SC 733, 2021 PC.LJ 506, 2025 PCr.LJ 498, 2023 SCMR 679, 2024 SCMR 1716 and 2024 SCMR 1210.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and AD legal FIA appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the role of the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused namely Arif Hussain is not identical as the present petitioner has been caught red handed while taking bribery/gratification from the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant and AD legal FIA further contended that recovery of bribed amount amounting to Rs. 300,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner/accused in presence of private witnesses at the spot with red handed whereas no recovery has been effected from his co-accused, thus role of the petitioner/accused and his co-accused are distinguishable. The learned counsel for the complainant and AD legal FIA further contended that bail petition of the present petitioner has already been dismissed by this Court on merit, whereas the fresh ground as stated by the petitioner/accused in his petition is not applicable to his case, hence the petitioner/accused is not entitled for any concession of bail. In support of his arguments, the learned AD Legal and counsel for the complainant have relied upon reported judgments of Superior Courts reported as 2010 SCMR 1735 and 1988 PLD 84(sic).

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance.

7. From perusal of record it transpires that admittedly co-accused of the petitioner namely Arif Hussain has been released on bail by this Court. The role of the present petitoner and his above named co-accused is almost similar. As per contents of FIR, the recovered amount had to be given to the above named co-accused of the petitioner by the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused had also received phone call of the above named co-accused at the time of recovery of tainted amount. Seemingly his role does not appear to be different than the role of his co-accused person namely Arif Hussain. Thus rule of consistency clearly applies to the case of the present petitioner and he is entitled to be released on bail on this sole ground.

8. Moreover, offences reflected in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 (1) Cr.P.C, hence in such like cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Furthermore, the petitioner/accused is behind the bars for the last more than four months. Investigation is complete and the petitioner/accused is no more required for further investigation. Detention of the petitioner/accused in prison for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose and the petitioner/accused is not a previous convict.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this petitioners is accepted and the petitioner/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 300,000/- (Three Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. File JK/41/GB Petition allowed.