2020 PLP 1493 (YLR)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2018 read with enabling Articles of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also enabling provisions of Cr.P.C. the petitioner/ accused has sought post-arrest bail in Reference No.R-501329/2014/Inv/ GHB/ 1122015/Mak/200 dated 05-8- 2016.

2. Briefly allegations against the accused/petitioner are that the present petitioner and his co-accused in connivance with other accused/Bank officials of NBP Sost Branch illegally and malafidely managed to clear goods from the Custom Authorities without paying the custom duties and taxes and have caused huge loss to the National Exchequer.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner is innocent and the National Accountability Bureau Authorities have arrest the petitioner/ accused on the basis of baseless allegation with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that co-accused of the present petitioner have been released on bail by this Court, hence rule of consistency applies to the case of the petitioner/accused and petitioner/ accused is also entitled for concessions of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned Special Prosecutor National Accountability Bureau vehemently opposed this writ petition by contending that soon after the occurrence the petitioner was absconded, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail. The learned special prosecutor National Accountability Bureau further argued that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case his co-accused who have been granted bail by this court, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned special prosecutor National Accountability Bureau and perused the available record with their able assistance.

6. Main thrust of contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused namely Fida Hussain, Basharat Hussain and Muhammad Issa, who have been admitted to bail by this court vide bail order dated 30-8-2017, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for concession of bail as rule of consistency is applicable to the case of the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, the above named co-accused of the petitioner who were implicated in the same reference and same offence have been admitted to bail by this court vide bail order dated 30-8-2017. Therefore, in view of the order passed in case of Fida Hussain and two others and following the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for concession of post arrest bail. Reference in this regard is made to reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 SCMR 173.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and consequently petitioner is admitted to the post arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in sum of Rs.10,00,000/-( Rupees one million) with two sureties each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. File. SA/186/GB Bail granted.