2009 PLP 614 (MLD)
HABIB-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 614 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HABIB-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 614 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 614 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 614 (MLD) (HABIB-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmed Junejo and Muhammad Asif Malik for Petitioner.
- Ainuddin Khan, ADPG, NAB for Respondent/State.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Co-accused whose role was almost similar to that of accused had been granted bail and the prosecution had not moved any application for cancellation of his bail--Bail granting order passed by High Court had attained finality, in circumstances
Rule of consistency demanded that accused should also be extended same concession
Accused, in circumstances were entitled to the grant of bail on the rule of consistency
Bail was granted.
Judgment & Decree
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of both the learned counsel for the petitioners is that other co-accused namely Altaf Haroon, who was Bank Manager and has been shown as accused at Sr. No.8 in the Reference, has already been granted bail by a Division Bench of this Court. Mr. Ali Ahmed Junejo states that the role assigned to the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail by this court and the prosecution has not filed any application for cancellation of bail in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Muhammad Asif Malik states that petitioner Habibur Rehman has wrongly been shown as Manager of the Branch where account was opened. He has further stated that at the relevant time the petitioner was not even posted at the said branch. Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned ADPG, NAB, has strongly opposed the grant of bail and stated that even in the earlier bail application granted to the co-accused he had opposed the grant of bail to the accused person as sufficient material against the accused is in the hands of the prosecution to connect them with the commission of the crime. Be that as it may, since the Division Bench of this Court has already granted bail to the co-accused, whose role it almost similar to that of the present accused and the prosecution has not moved any application for cancellation of, his bail, as such the bail order passed by this court has attained finality, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner should also be extended same concession. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the present petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail on the rule of consistency. Accordingly, we grant them bail in the sum of Rs.500,000 each with P.R. Bond in tike amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The observations made by this court in the bail order are tentative in nature and the trial court should not be influenced by the same while deciding the case. The trial Court should decide the case according to the evidence produced before it at the time of trial. Petition stand disposed of. H.B.T./H-13/K Bail granted.