2010 PLP 1744 (YLR)

IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.

Applicant Liaqat Ali Sahar is facing trial before learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Dadu, in Crime No.108/2006. Police Station Thariri Mohabbat, lodged for offences punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. are that applicant along with two other co-accused Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Razak and absconding accused Nazir and Asghar have launched a murderous assault upon complainant party, in which Syed Amir Hamza Shah died. During course of investigation name of applicant was kept in column No.2 of the challan. Consequently, the learned trial Court joined him as an accused on 1-7-2006, as his name appeared in F.I.R. with specific role. I have heard learned counsel for applicant, and learned State counsel learned counsel for applicant contended that with the similar allegation co-accused Abdul Rasheed has been granted bail by the learned trial Court on 9-9-2009 while the request of the applicant has been declined. He further contended that case of the applicant is on better footings than that of co-accused, who has been admitted to bail, as during investigation police came to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel relied upon case of Muhammad Dawood and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 173 and contended that rule of consistency is applicable in the case of applicant. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court has not considered this aspect of the case, and such tact is escaped away from the notice of learned trial Court that co-accused Abdul Rasheed with similar allegation was granted bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not oppose grant of bail to the applicant on the rule of consistency as co-accused Abdul Rasheed with similar allegation has been granted bail by the learned trial Court. I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the record of the case. Co-accused Abdul Rasheed was ascribed role of firing upon deceased and the applicant was also ascribed the same role. Co-accused Abdul Rasheed has been granted bail by learned trial Court observing as under:-- "It is also an admitted fact that charge has been framed against accused about two years back, but since prosecution has failed to examine even a single witness, though the complainant has engaged an Advocate and he was remained available in the Court and was aware about the date of hearing for evidence. According to endorsement of process server the complainant has refused to attend the Court for evidence unless they get direction from his Advocate. In the case of Muhammad Dawood and others v. The State (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court held that it is informed that co-accused Muhammad Ishaq and two others in the case have also been admitted to bail. Therefore, in view of the order in the case of Jamil Ahmed (Supra) and following the rule of consistency the petitioners are also admitted to bail. Following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. I am of the view that as per rule of consistency the applicant is also entitled for some treatment. Consequently, I allow this bail application. The applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000 (Three lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./L-3/K Bail granted.