Rule of consistency

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 2 (za) & 9 [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]

Recovery of psychotropic substance

Bail, grant of

Case of further inquiry

Rule of consistency

Conscious knowledge

Tablets Rivotril (Clonazepam) were recovered from consignment of goods to be exported abroad

Accused contended that he was neither exporter, shipper, clearing agent nor financer of the shipment and he also did not have conscious knowledge of alleged recovered tablets / medicines

Validity

Exporter and directors of manufacturing company of drugs had been granted bail while clearing / forwarding agent was never arrested

Alleged recovery of psychotropic substance was recovered without videography or photography at the spot to show veracity of raid and role of accused

Role of accused required further proof regarding his involvement in illegal export

Rationale of setting the law into motion in criminal cases is to make an accused face the trial and not to punish him pre-trial or make him rot behind bars because every accused is innocent until proven guilty

Doctrine of "further inquiry" refers to a notional and exploratory assessment that may create doubt regarding involvement of accused in the crime

Rule of consistency or doctrine of parity in bail matters encapsulates that where incriminating and ascribed role to accused is the same as that of co-accused, then benefit extended to one accused should also be extended to co-accused according to the principle "like cases should be treated alike" after accurate evaluation and assessment of co-offender's role in commission of alleged offence

Case of accused was one of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed.

Allegation against the applicant-accused was that he made transaction of foreign currency without any legal justification

Tentative assessment of the evidence showed that there was no direct evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence

Applicant was nominated in the FIR on the confessional statement of co-accused

Such confessional statement was not admissible under Art.38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Confessional statement of an accused could not be used against the other in absence of any attending material produced by the prosecution

Contravention of S.5 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, entails total punishment as provided by S.23 of the said Act is imprisonment which may extend to five years or with fine or with both

Since the alternate sentence of fine had also been provided, therefore, the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail on that ground alone

Co-accused had already be enlarged on bail, thus the applicant was also entitled for bail on the ground that offence against accused fell outside the scope of prohibited clause contained in S.497, Cr.P.C, notwithstanding the fact that mandatory provision of law contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, in respect of search and recovery had apparently not been complied with

If the bail of applicant was not confirmed, after arrest he could be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed co-accused was already on bail

When bail application of co-accused having one and the same role was allowed, then applicant could also be given the benefit of such bail on the ground of consistency, even at the stage of bail before arrest

By sending applicant behind the bars, no useful purpose would be served

Petition was allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused/petitioner was that he and his co-accused had taken bribery/illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 300,000/= from the complainant on the pretext to adjust electricity bills of a hotel of complainant

Record transpired that admittedly co-accused of the petitioner had been released on bail by this Court

Role of the present petitioner and his co-accused was almost similar

As per contents of FIR, the recovered amount had to be given to the co-accused of the petitioner by the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused had also received phone call of the co-accused at the time of recovery of tainted amount

Seemingly role of accused/petitioner did not appear to be different than the role of his co-accused

Thus rule of consistency clearly applied to the case of the present petitioner and he was entitled to be released on bail on that sole ground

Moreover, offences reflected in the FIR did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497 (1) Cr.P.C, hence in such like cases, grant of bail was a rule and refusal was an exception

Furthermore, the petitioner/accused was behind the bars for the last more than four months

Investigation was complete and the petitioner/accused was 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 was not a previous convict

Bail application of the accused/petitioner was allowed, in circumstances.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for valuable security, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal breach of trust by public servant, public servant accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration, offence of forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Rule of consistency

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he through forged document and with the connivance of Naib Tehsildar sold out land measuring 1410 kanals including common village lands and public grazing land fraudulently

Admittedly, the accused/petitioner was not a Government servant hence S.409, P.P.C, and S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not applicable to the extent of the petitioner in the present case

Co-accused, who were arrested by the police in the instant case, had already been granted post arrest bail by the Chief Court and another nominated accused, the then Naib Tehsildar was on interim bail, as such the present petitioner became entitled for concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency

Moreover, there was unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR and the documentary evidence available on the prosecution file suggested the matter being of private transaction

Piece of land regarding which the transaction was alleged was not Government land as per revenue record, rather the same was recorded as Jagir of Raja's of the area in the revenue documents

Investigation in the matter to the extent of the present petitioner was completed and the petitioner was behind bars without any trial in the case

Nothing was available on case file to prove the entrustment of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust, hence, the application of S.409, P.P.C., in the instant matter required further inquiry to the extent of present petitioner

Other sections did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was local habitant of the area and the prosecution had not taken the plea of abscondance or tampering with the evidence by the accused, as such in absence of any allegation of abscondance or tempering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail was not to be withheld as punishment, because the accused/ petitioner would face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the Trial Court at the time of conclusion of the trial

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Rule of consistency is applicable only when one person's case is at par with the rest of the accused whose post-arrest bail has been granted.

As per record, three accused were charged for the occurrence with the allegation that the accused/ applicant along with acquitted accused and co-accused (on bail) made firing upon the deceased and effective role was attributed to all the accused persons

Record revealed that after facing trial the co-accused was acquitted from the charge by the Trial Court on 30.03.2024 and subsequently the co-accused was arrested and was enlarged on bail by the trial Court on 29.06.2024

All the accused were ascribed similar role

Rule of consistency, or in other words, the doctrine of parity in criminal cases, including bail matters, recapitulated that where the incriminating and ascribed role to the accused was one and the same as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused also on the principle that like cases should be treated alike, but after accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders' role in the commission of the alleged offence

In the case in hand all the accused persons nominated in the FIR were attributed the same role that they made firing upon the deceased who received injuries, however, one of the accused persons was acquitted from the charge after being given benefit of doubt by the trial Court and the other accused had been granted bail by the Trial Court

After tentative assessment, the applicant had not only made out a case of further inquiry but he was also entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the rule of consistency

Prosecution alleged that the accused/applicant remained absconder after the incident as such he was not entitled to bail, however an applicant could be granted bail if the applicant otherwise made out the case on merits and mere absconsion would not come in his way

Custody of the applicant would not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Rule of consistency

Petitioner (accused) was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons sustained fire arm injuries

Perusal of record revealed that five persons had been charged by complainant in the FIR for commission of offence, out of which petitioner and a co-accused had been assigned role of causing firearm injuries to two persons

One victim had sustained injuries on his right leg from alleged firing of petitioner, which was non-vital part of the body coupled with the fact that petitioner had not repeated fire shots, which showed that petitioner had no intention to kill the injured therefore mens rea of petitioner at the time of commission of offence could best be determined by Trial Court after recording prosecution evidence

No crime weapon had been recovered from immediate possession of petitioner or at his instance and pointation

Co-accused to whom similar role of causing firearm injuries to the other injured was attributed, had already been released on bail by Judicial Magistrate, therefore, petitioner having been assigned identical role as that of co-accused, was also entitled to concession of bail on the plea of principle of consistency

Nothing was on record regarding previous conviction or involvement of petitioner in similar offences, and he was behind the bars since his arrest and was no more required by the investigation agency for further interrogation

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner/ accused was that he along with his co-accused murdered the father of the complainant by inflicting firearm injuries

Held: Record reflects that two nominated accused persons had already been granted post-arrest bail by the High Court and apparently said order had not been challenged by the complainant

Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest; he is no more required by the investigating agency for the purpose of further investigation

No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period

Granting bail to an accused person does not amount to his acquittal, rather his custody is handed over from State to the surety, who takes the responsibility to produce the accused before the Trial Court

Bail was granted to petitioner, in circumstances.

Plea of the petitioner / accused was that since two co-accused persons including a lady , were granted pre-arrest bail, the petitioner / accused was similarly entitled to such relief

Validity

Importantly , the roles of the co-accused persons differed significantly from that of the principal accused as they were involved as facilitators to the main accused, whereas the petitioner had a distinct and principal role in the case

Bail application, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the applicant was that he whilst sitting on rear seat of motorcycle driven by co-accused (son of applicant) was intercepted by the police, but escaped by taking benefit of darkness; however, police party though beings armed with sophisticated weapons did not follow him

Co-accused, from whom police recovered motorcycle and certain quantity of local liquor, had been bailed out

Applicant at the time of fleeing away had not left any incriminating material nor had been shown to have any article with him connecting him with the commission of offence except his mere presence, which allegation was yet to be established by the prosecution after recording evidence and then Trial Court had to determine the same

Maximum punishment for the offence alleged was 03 years

Case against applicant was one of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022], S. 9(1)(3)(b)

Possession of narcotic substance

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Rule of consistency

Nothing had been recovered from the possession of applicant nor he was available at the time of offence and his name had been disclosed/taken by co-accused before police, which could not be made basis for maintaining conviction against him

Co-accused, from whose possession alleged contraband was secured, had been bailed out by the Trial Court and case of applicant was on better footing than that of co-accused, thus, propriety of law demanded applicant should be treated at par by extending him a constant treatment

Punishment provided by law for the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., thus, bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal an exception

Case required further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused were involved in misuse of their authority and misappropriation of government funds

Record showed that the trial Court while convicting the present appellant, on the basis of same set of the evidence, had acquitted one accused who was working as Senior Clerk in the Highway Division at the relevant time and against whom the allegation was that he had misappropriated government funds and his liability was calculated to be more than the liability of present accused/appellant

Rule of consistency demanded that if the trial Court had disbelieved the evidence in respect of a co-accused, the same could not be relied upon for convicting other accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner /accused was that he allegedly provided refuge within his residence to the principal accused who was purported to have indiscriminately fired upon three persons, resulting in their demise

Validity

Admittedly, it was the principal accused who directly opened fire on three individuals, culminating in their fatal injuries

First Information Report delineated the incident as an offshoot of a familial and matrimonial dispute

Significantly, the petitioner's name was not originally recorded in the FIR but surfaced subsequently through an additional statement by the complainant

Such statements, made under S.161, Cr.P.C, inherently warranted further judicial scrutiny, as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of co-accused who was granted bail by the High Court

Consequently, the petitioner, by the rule of consistency, was equally entitled to bail

Petitioner had been behind bars since his arrest and with the investigation having concluded, his continued detention served no tangible purpose

Given the indeterminate timeframe for the trial's completion, prolonging the applicant's incarceration would be unjustified

Petitioner / accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Allegations against the petitioner was that he and his wife received a gift from Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia but failed to deposit the gift with the Toshakhana and purchased the same by undervaluing its price

Bail of co-accused-wife of petitioner had been accepted

Office Memorandum in question described that the non-deposit of a gift with the Toshakhana within a prescribed time limit was required to be met with "appropriate punitive action" under "the relevant rules."

Said Office Memorandum dated 18.03.2023 was to have effect from 22.02.2023

Prosecutor, submitted very fairly earlier that the Office Memorandum dated 18.03.2023 did not have retrospective effect so as to be made applicable to the case against the petitioner which took place almost two years before the said Office Memorandum was issued

Fact that the ealier Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2018 did not make the non-deposit of the gift with the Toshakhana/Cabinet Division liable to "appropriate action" under "the relevant rules," on tentative view, made the case against the petitioner as one of further inquiry

Petitioner's case was not on higher pedestal from that of his wife who had already been granted post-arrest bail by the High Court as the report under S.173, Cr.P.C placed both of them in the same category

Entrustment of the jewellery set (gift) was alleged against the petitioner as well as his wife

However, the receipt for the payment had admittedly been issued to the petitioner's wife and not to the petitioner

Petitioner was 72 years of age

In this case, he was arrested on 13.07.2024 and remained incarcerated in prison for more than four months

Investigation Officer had not felt the need to question the petitioner after the entrustment of the case to Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)

Since the reference against the petitioner had earlier been filed before Accountability Court, that would mean that the investigation in the case was complete

Charge against the petitioner had not been framed as yet, therefore, the conclusion of the trial was not in sight

Evidence in the case was largely documentary in nature which was already in the prosecution's possession

Hence, there was no chance of the petitioner tampering with such evidence

Present case was one of further inquiry

Post arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner (accused) was not nominated in the FIR, instead he was implicated on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded by the police nine days after the occurrence

Although the complainant in his said supplementary statement levelled allegation of abduction against the petitioner along with three co-accused persons yet record showed that the alleged victim /lady filed private complaint under Ss. 506 & 34, P.P.C. before the Court of Magistrate against her father and other relatives

Before the Court of Magistrate, victim/lady herself appeared and got her statement recorded in which (statement) she categorically contended that she was not abducted by any of the accused persons, rather, she out of her own free will contracted marriage with one of the co-accused persons, and she mentioned the date of her marriage which was about three months before the date of registration of the FIR

It was further contended by the alleged victim that her parents were not happy of her marriage and they were causing illegal harassment to her ,therefore, she filed the said private complaint against her father and other relatives

Alleged victim, in her said statement, further contented that before contracting marriage with co-accused, her Nikah was not solemnized with anyone

Keeping in view the said statement of the alleged abductee the offences under sections 365-B & 494, P.P.C., were not attracted against the petitioner

Record showed that four co-accused persons, with similar allegation , preferred their post arrest bail which was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge and the Chief Court

Case of the petitioner was at par with the case of aforesaid co-accused, therefore, the petitioner was also entitled for the same relief keeping in view the rule of consistency

Petitioner was behind the bars since his arrest and was no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period

Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail.

Neither injury statement of alleged injured was prepared nor there was any medical report about his alleged firearm injury

No recovery of firearm was effected from petitioner/accused during investigation

Investigation was complete, challan had been submitted and trial had commenced

Charge was read over to accused persons by Trial Court but so far statements of prosecution witnesses had not been recorded at trial

Co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail by the Supreme Court

On tentative assessment of material available on record case against petitioner/accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry

On the basis of rule of consistency petitioner accused was also entitled for grant of post-arrest bail

Mere absconsion of petitioner accused for almost seven months could not be made a basis to refuse him post-arrest bail

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and bail was allowed.

Rule of consistency, or in other words, the doctrine of parity in criminal cases, including bail matters, recapitulates that where the role ascribed to the accused is one and the same as that of the co-accused, then the benefit extended to the co-accused should be extended to the accused also, on the principle that like cases should be treated alike, but after accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders' role in the commission of the alleged offence

While applying the doctrine of parity in bail matters, the Court is obligated to concentrate on the constituents of the role assigned to the accused and then decide whether a case for the grant of bail on the standard of parity or rule of consistency is made out or not.

Rule of consistency, or in other words, the doctrine of parity in criminal cases, including bail matters, encapsulates that where the incriminated and ascribed role to the accused is one and the same as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused also on the principle that like cases should be treated alike but after accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders' role in the commission of the alleged offence

While applying the doctrine of parity in bail matters, the Court is obligated to concentrate on the constituents of the role assigned to the accused and then decide whether a case for the grant of bail on the standard of parity or rule of consistency is made out or not.

Benchmark for applying the rule of consistency in granting bail to an accused stated.

As per prosecution story, on the fateful day accused persons armed with deadly weapons made collective firing with their respective weapons on the house of the complainant, due to which one bullet hit the head of complainant's son aged about 5 years, who died at the spot

Accused to whom effective role in the occurrence was attributed had been acquitted of the charge through impugned judgment on the same setup of evidence as his role was also identical with that of the pauper accused

Prosaic rule of law and equity was that once arraignment witnesses were doubted concerning a co-blamed then, they could not be depended upon with respect to the next co-charged, until and unless it was upheld by any free verifying piece of proof, which was prominently absent in the present case

Appeal filed by pauper appellant was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge.

Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment

Bail, refusal of

Rule of consistency

Abscondance of accused

Inhuman nature of the accused

Petitioner was nominated through supplementary statement; and specific role of firing upon the deceased was attributed to him

Contention of the petitioner/accused was that other accused persons had already been granted bail

Validity

Record showed that the mother of the deceased had also charged the petitioner in her statement recorded under S. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Record also revealed that previously the petitioner had been charged in cases of similar nature and in one such (murder) case the very deceased was the complainant in which attempt on his (deceased's) life was also alleged

Record (recovery of two empties from the spot, FSL report with regard to blood stained earth, post-mortem report etc.) in the present case, for being linked in a chain, prima facie, connected the petitioner with the commission of the offence

Role of firing having been attributed to the petitioner was quite different from those accused who had been enlarged on bail, thus rule of consistency was not attracted to the petitioner

Besides, the petitioner had absconded in the present case and proceedings under Ss. 87 & 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, had been completed against him

Punishment provided for the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Prosecution, while furnishing number of FIRs against the petitioner, had submitted/stated about him to be a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal

On account of inhuman and blood thirsty nature of the petitioner, the victims of his atrocities were scared and rarely charged him for cases like the present one

All probabilities with particular involvement of the petitioner in the present case disentitled him for grant of bail

Bail was declined to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Record showed that previously one accused was convicted by the Trial Court, whereas two co-accused persons were acquitted and complainant did not challenge their acquittal before the higher forum

Subsequently convicted accused challenged his conviction before the Court and he too was acquitted and such acquittal judgment was maintained by Supreme Court of Pakistan

Rule of consistency demanded that if an accused has been acquitted from the charge by disbelieving evidence of prosecution witnesses, other accused charged with similar allegations is also entitled to have same concession/treatment and the evidence of that particular witness can not be made basis for convicting other accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, qatl-i-khata, jaifah, endangering the safety of the persons by any rash or negligent act or omission, intentional acts, omissions and negligence of functionaries, maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt persons travelling by railway or damaging property belonging to railway

Appreciation of evidence

Rule of consistency

Prosecution case was that due the negligence of accused, accident of train took place, and resultantly, 15 lives had been lost whereas 44 passengers had sustained grievous injuries

Record showed that charge was framed against four accused persons

Same allegations had been levelled against all the four accused despite that the accused had been convicted while other three accused persons had been acquitted of the charge

From perusal of the contents of FIR, it was found that it had been mentioned therein that on enquiry at the spot, it was disclosed that due to negligence in duty by three accused persons, incident had taken place

However, the prosecution had not furnished any plausible explanation/ justification that when in the FIR the allegations regarding negligence due to which said accident had allegedly taken place, had been attributed to all three accused persons named in the FIR, then as to how and why the other two persons had been exonerated from the charge and had been arrayed as prosecution witnesses, whereas the accused had been sent up for trial

In that view of the matter, the rule of consistency came into play

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused

Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Rule of consistency

Co-accused acquitted out the same set of evidence

Accused were charged for committing murder of sister, brother-in-law and two nephews of the complainant, injuring his niece and also committing rape with his niece and her mother

Record showed that the court had already acquitted minor co-accused persons of the murder of the deceased and injury to injured witness, who had the same role as the accused in the murders based on the same evidence before the court

In such circumstances the court could not convict the accused for the murder of the deceased and the injury to injured Witness

Accused was acquitted based on the benefit of doubt which was also extended to co-accused persons by the court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record transpired that the accused/petitioner had been implicated in the offences which were prima facie not attracted against him

No denial of the fact that the Hospital concerned was primarily accountable for the said embezzlement and corruption according to the rules, being sole custodian of the concerned department, but it seemed that the liability had been malafidely/dishonestly shifted to junior staff, which was not even the concerned/ministerial staff

This was against the law/rules and such dishonest act of the concerned authority created serious doubts and dents in the case of the prosecution

Main co-accused Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and contractor, who were directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR and allegedly specific role had been attributed to them by the complainant, had been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, which also attracted the universal, "Rule of Consistency" in favor of the present accused/petitioner

Undoubtedly, all the alleged offences were bailable, except the offence under S.409, P.P.C, which fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie was not attracted in the present case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner

Furthermore, the complainant present in Court appeared before the Court on his own accord and stated at bar that he had neither alleged nor nominated the present accused/petitioner in the FIR for the commission of alleged offences and went on to say that had no complaint against the present accused/petitioner

Perusal of the record revealed that one of main accused/Cashier was still at large and the respondent/State had taken no action against him

No specific amount or figure of alleged embezzlement amount by the present accused/ petitioner had been mentioned in the FIR or anywhere in the record

First Information Report had been lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay of almost four years, which created serious dents and doubts in the prosecution story

Whole case of prosecution was based on documentary evidence, which was already in the prosecution file

Present petitioner was no more required for further investigation purposes and there was no chance of tempering of record of the case

Concession of bail could not be withheld by way of punishments

Accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period, when co-accused had been granted bail

Connection of the accused with the commission of alleged offences was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence

Matter in hand required further probe into the guilt of the petitioner

In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception

Case of the accused/ petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, entitling him for the concession of post arrest bail and the same was allowed, in circumstances.

Record transpired that the present accused/petitioner, had been implicated in the offences which were prima facie not attracted against him

No denial of the fact that publication of the tender in the PEPRA website was the prime and principle liability/responsibility of the then District Health Officer according to the rules, being sole custodian of the concerned department, but it seemed that the same liability had been malafidely/ dishonestly shifted to junior staff member who was even not the concerned/ministerial staff, rather he was technical staff

This was against the law/rules and such dishonest act of the concerned authority created serious doubts and dents in the case of the prosecution

Admittedly and surprisingly one of the co-accused who had been allegedly attributed an identical role had been released by the police under S.169, Cr.P.C.

Moreover, the then District Health Officer had also been exonerated and given clean chit from the Investigation Officer of the present case, which also attracted the universal, "Rule of Consistency" in favor of the present accused/petitioner

Undoubtedly, offences under Ss. 417, 420, 465, 471, P.P.C, were bailable offences, whereas offence under S.409, P.P.C, fallen within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie was not attracted in the present case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner

Matter in hand required further probe into the guilt of the accused/petitioner

In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception

Accused/petitioner was behind the bars for the last couple of months, waiting for commencement of the trial of the case

Investigation of the case was complete and the present accused/petitioner was no more required for further investigation

Thus, the case of the accused/petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of S.497(2) Cr.P.C, entitling him for the concession of post arrest bail and the same was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for making firing in order to spread fear and terror, due to which complainant was hit and became injured

Petitioner/accused was not directly nominated in the FIR and no specific role hadbeen attributed to him in the occurrence and investigation of the case had been completed by the prosecution and there was no ocular evidence of the occurrence

Co-accused of the present petitioner who were attributed similar role, had been released on bail by the Trial Court

Another co-accused of the present petitioner had been released on bail by the Chief Court and the case of accused/petitioner was at par with the other accused hence, he was also entitled for grant of post arrest bail on the principle of consistency

Bail is not to be withheld as punishment

There was no legal and moral compulsion to keep the people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, unless reasonable grounds exist to disclose their involvement

Petition was allowed and the present petitioner/accused was admitted to post arrest bail.

From perusal of record it transpired that the occurrence took place on 16-04-2019 and FIR was registered on the same day

However, despite lapse of more than 4½ years the prosecution had failed to conclude the trial

Earlier, the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail before the High Court which was disposed of with direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the case of the petitioner/accused within 10 days by conducting day to day hearing as case was at concluding stage but the prosecution failed to produce remaining witnesses before the Trial Court, hence, bail petition was filed

Prosecution had failed to conclude the case of the petitioner despite lapse of more than 4½ years of the registration of FIR and despite clear direction of the High Court

Accused could not be kept in jail for indefinite period as punishment on the ground that he was directly charged for an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Moreover, co-accused of the present petitioner had been released on bail by the High Court as such the petitioner was also entitled for the same on the principle of rule of consistency

Petitioner/accused was behind bars for last more than four years and he was no more required for purpose of investigation

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period

Thus, petitioner was entitled for concession of bail

Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Although the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the specific allegation of transmitting objectionable photographs and videos of the complainant but the record revealed that the sim used for the purpose of transmitting the said photographs and videos was owned by person "A", co-accused, and according to "A" he forgot his sim at the house of person "T", another co-accused

Both "A" and "T" were brother-in-law of the complainant

Although according to the investigation, the mobile phone in which the said objectionable photographs and videos were available, was recovered from the possession of the accused but according to the prosecution while transmitting the said objectionable photographs and videos the sim owned by "A" was used

Bail had already been granted to "A" and in such eventuality, the accused had become entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency

Even otherwise, the accused had no previous criminal record

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail.

Subsequent to that she was implicated in the case pursuant to the statement of brother of the deceased recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. after lapse of 15 days

Admittedly, the recovered dead body of the deceased was fully burnt and overall condition of the dead body made it impossible to identify the deceased

Although DNA test of the corpse had been done but the report was still awaited

Only allegation against the accused was that the whole occurrence was committed by the principal accused on her instigation/abetment

However, no specific date, time and place where the conspiracy was hatched had been mentioned

Even name and number of witnesses to that extent were not available on the record

Accused had two children, one of which was a suckling baby girl of 17 months, who had been confined with her in jail

Other child was living with the grandmother

Principal accused had already been granted post-arrest bail by the High Court, and the case of the present accused was even at better footing as compared to the principal accused

Following the rule of consistency, the accused also deserved the same treatment to be meted out

Furthermore accused was behind bars for the last more than five months; she was otherwise a woman and her case was covered by first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused had made out a case for bail as her case squarely fell within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into her guilt

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail.

Said doctrine encapsulates that where the role ascribed to the accused is one and the same as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused also on the principle that like cases should be treated alike but after accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders' role in the commission of the alleged offence

While applying doctrine of parity in bail matters, the Court is obligated to concentrate on the constituents of the role assigned to the accused and then decide whether a case for the grant of bail on the standard of parity or rule of consistency is made out or not.

No specific role was assigned to the present accused, rather all the accused persons had been incriminated with composite and alike role in the commission of offense out of whom, two accused had already been granted post arrest bail by the Trial Court

According to an affidavit submitted in the Trial Court, the complainant conceded to the bail of one of the accused and did not want to indict him for the charge and so far as the bail granted to the other accused was concerned, nothing was said that any petition for cancellation of bail was moved against him if the complainant was aggrieved of his bail

Role of the two accused that were granted bail was not dissimilar to the present accused

FIR was silent as to whether any ransom was paid or not

Case of accused was covered under the rule of parity and was also one of further inquiry

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail.

Respondents were charged that they being holders of public office in connivance with each other misused their authority and by means of corrupt, dishonest and illegal means caused loss of Rs. 3,80,22,566/- to the government exchequer as in execution of the schemes they violated the procedure laid down by rules and received commission/illegal gratification from the contractors

Record revealed that on same set of evidence three accused had been acquitted

Admittedly, the evidence in cases of acquittal and conviction was apprised in different prospective

On perusal of record of the Trial Court it was found that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence

Trial Court had considered the material produced before it and had discussed the evidence in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the accusation

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where bail was granted on the rule of consistency, the High Court observed that the co-accused had been treated as having a role at par with the accused, without realizing the fact that the role of causing a firearm injury to the deceased had solely been attributed to the accused by the complainant

Bail granted to the accused was cancelled, in circumstances.

30 empties of 7.62 bore were retrieved from the spot which as per the report of Forensic Laboratory had been fired from different weapons

Given the fact that the accused along with his co-accused had been directly nominated by the complainant for firing at his deceased brother with their respective firearms with which he sustained multiple firearm injuries and died on the spot, coupled with the report of Forensic Laboratory pointing towards the involvement of more than one accused in the commission of offence, the accused was prima facie connected with the commission of offence attracting prohibitory limb of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Argument that co-accused with a similar role of firing at the deceased had been acquitted by the Trial Court carried little weight

While co-accused had faced trial, the accused had preferred to abscond and had surrendered barely a month after the acquittal of his co-accused

Moreover, the other co-accused was still fugitive from law

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after pre-paration for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, common intention

Bail, refusal of

Rule of consistency

Scope

Allegation against accused was that he along with others fired at the complainant party as a result of which two persons got injured

Accused was shown as armed with 12 bore shot gun

Injury on person of the victim was shown by the doctor as 1 × 1 cm with no exit wound

Other accused persons, who were released on bail, were charged for an injury in which respect even the doctor, who prepared the case summary, could not explain that it was a fire arm injury

Accused could not press into service the rule of consistency as in the episode two got injured at different intervals

No question of mistaken identity, as the parties were known and related to each other

Bail petition being bereft of merit was dismissed.

Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Acquittal of co-accused on same set of evidence

Rule of consistency

Accused were charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant along with her minor daughter and raping her

In the present case, Twenty-two (22) persons were indicted and stood trial

Seven accused were convicted and rest fifteen (15) accused were acquitted

Where same set of witnesses is disbelieved qua number of accused persons implicated in the case, it cannot be made foundation for conviction of rest of the accused persons in absence of strong and independent corroboration, which was conspicuously missing in the present case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Record transpired that lady co-accused of the accused who allegedly caused sota blow at the body of deceased had been acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence

No appeal against the acquittal of said co-accused had been filed by the complainant or the State

Once prosecution witnesses were disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then they could not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they were supported by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and would be unimpeachable in nature but that was not available in the present case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Case against accused persons was that they, in connivance with each other, illegally appointed seventy-eight persons in District Health Office without issuance of advertisement and formation of District Recruitment Committee

Role assigned to the accused persons was similar to the other accused persons who had been given the concession of bail

Investigation had been completed and there was no likelihood that the accused could either tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses

Accused who was District Health Officer at the time was one of the decision makers in the entire episode, and his role, obligation and responsibility was different from other co-accused

Accused persons were admitted bail subject to furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- while the bail of District Health Officer was held to be contingent upon furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rupees Five Million.

When benefit of doubt is extended to one set of accused with identical role, the same cannot be withheld from other set of accused having been assigned a similar/identical role by the prosecution in the case.

Prosecution case was that huge quantity of narcotics and weapons were recovered from a locked house where photostat copies of the CNIC and a special duty card of the accused was found

Police party before entering the house had asked the residents of the area to act as witnesses but they had declined

First Information Report had not specifically stated as to how many persons were asked by the police party to act as witness and the names of such persons had also not been disclosed

Accused was not owner of the house contrary to such claim made in the FIR

Accused was not in possession of the house

Accused had been booked and charged under Ss. 6 & 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section 6 prohibited production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, delivery, transportation and/or dispatch of narcotic substance described therein

Section 9 provided the punishment for the contravention of Ss. 6, 7 & 8

Prima facie, it appeared that the accused was not involved in any of the acts mentioned in S. 6

Case of accused, in circumstances, was one of further inquiry

Co-accused, who was owner of the house, had already been granted bail

Case of accused was on better footing than that of the co-accused

Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he along with his companion in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased

Motive behind the murder of the deceased as shown by the prosecution was the liaison of accused with the wife of the deceased and she was also made co-accused in the case

In the present case, though the accused had denied the connivance of co-accused for the murder of the deceased but the stance of prosecution appeared to be the basis of the murder of the deceased due to terms of the accused with co-accused, however, Trial Court had acquitted co-accused

'Rule of consistency' demanded that if an accused had been extended a certain benefit, other accused charged with similar allegations was also entitled to the same concession/treatment

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Co-accused persons had committed the murder of a person by causing him pistol fire shot, hatchet and spade injuries on his face

Role attributed against the accused was that he was present at the scene of occurrence having lathi in his hand but he had not used the same in the commission of alleged offence

Accused was not alleged to have caused any injury either to the deceased or to the complainant party

At the most his case fell under the scope of vicarious liability

Another accused whose case was at par with that of the accused had been granted bail by the High Court

Case against accused called for further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused were that he raped the complainant after administering an intoxicant; that he prepared certain videos of the complainant on the pretext that he would enter into marriage with the complainant and even forced her for abortion of pregnancy

Investigating Officer had conceded that no direct evidence was available on record; that the alleged offence had been committed a year ago and that FIR had been lodged with delay

Doctors, who had allegedly committed abortion, had already been granted pre-arrest bail before whom complainant and accused had claimed to be a married couple, therefore, a case of further inquiry had surfaced on record

Accused was not required for the purposes of investigation

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Importer/respondent availed the exemption on payment on sales tax on import of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) Grade 1502 under SRO 1125(I)/2011 dated 31-12-2011

Appellant/Department assailed order-in-original passed in favour of importer/respondent contending that the said exemption was available on SBR in latex form only whereas normally the same (SBR) was being imported in form of lumps/solid blocks etc. having no usage in export-oriented sector

Held, that SBR in latex form was not classifiable under PCT 4002.1900, instead the same was specifically classified under PCT 4002.1100

SRO 1125(I)/2011 dated 31-12-2011 specifically granted exemption from payment of sales tax under PCT 4002.1900

Exemption enjoyed by the importer/respondent on import of SBR Grade 1502 was rightly claimed and extended by the Clearance Collectorate

Record also revealed that several consignments of many other importers had already been released extending the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax under SRO 1125(I)/2011 dated 31-12-2011, thus rule of consistency was to be applied in the present case also

Order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority in favor importer/respondent was upheld

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Counsel for injured witness and the accused both admitted that one of the co-accused, who had also fired in the air, similar to the accused, was granted pre-arrest bail, which bail order was subsequently been confirmed by the Court, and was neither challenged by the injured witness nor by the complainant

Case of accused was not distinguishable from the case of the said co-accused granted pre-arrest bail

In such circumstances as per rule of consistency, the accused was also entitled to relief of bail

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted pre-arrest bail.

In the present case, although the accused had been assigned a specific role of firing at the chest and arms of the deceased persons, the perusal of evidence suggests that the other co-accused persons had also made straight fires on the deceased, which shots hit on different parts of their body

Locale of the injuries sustained by the deceased due to the firing made by the co-accused persons had not been described

According to postmortem report, one of the deceased sustained as many as 14 injuries on his body whereas 5 were on his chest

Every possibility existed that the fire shots made by the co-accused persons would have also hit the chest of the deceased

However, said co-accused persons along with all other co-accused had been acquitted of the charge either by the Trial Court through a separate trial or by the High Court through the impugned judgment

Police in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. had not found the accused involved in the occurrence and he was only found involved to the extent of communication with co-accused via a mobile phone

However, neither the mobile phone nor Call Data Record was placed on record

Furthermore, no memo of recovery of mobile phone was ever made

So far as the allegation of abetment against the accused was concerned, the three ingredients essential to establish/charge any person as conspirator i.e. (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with co-accused, and (iii) intentional aid qua the act or omission for the purpose of completion of said abetment, were squarely missing from the record of the present case

Weapon of offence i.e. Kalashnikov had also not been recovered from the accused

No incriminating evidence was available against the accused to distinguish his case from that of the co-accused persons since acquitted

Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

Device used for sharing the objectionable video was of the co-accused and as such the case of the accused was at better footings as compared to co-accused

As the co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the accused was entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency

Furthermore maximum punishment for the offence under the statute was 05 years which did not attract the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Prima facie, there were sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the accused was fully covered by S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to his guilt

Consequently petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was admitted to bail.

Admittedly the accused was posted as Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO) in the year 2019 whereas the scam of bogus registration pertained to the years 2015-2018

Investigating Officer stated before the Court that up till now the accused had no nexus with the scam, which was under investigation

As far as the case of the co-accused was concerned, it was his case that he was merely a Data Entry Operator, who was entrusted with the job of punching the data in system

As per SOPs, the basic duty to examine the documents and verify the particulars of the vehicles entered in the system with the original file; the physical examination of the vehicle, and submission of the file after complete satisfaction of the papers of the motor vehicle was the job of the Inspector and not the co-accused

All the officers, who were nominated in the crime report, had been exonerated, which fact prima facie fortified the stance of the accused and co-accused that they had been made scapegoat

One of the co-accused, who had been ascribed a similar role to that of present accused and co-accused had been granted post arrest bail up to the High Court, and his bail was not challenged before the Supreme Court, meaning it had attained finality

Trial Court after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the accused and co-accused and no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars for an indefinite period

Prima facie there were sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the accused and co-accused was fully covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt

Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed and accused and co-accused were granted pre-arrest bail.

Accused along with others were alleged to have committed the offences falling within the mischief of Ss.302, 324, 147, 148 & 149, P.P.C.

Accused were nominated in the FIR

Four witnesses in their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., had implicated the co-accused with the allegation of firing upon the deceased and witnesses

Said co-accused was granted bail by the High Court

Role assigned to the accused was the same

Rule of consistency was applicable to the case of accused

Mere involvement of accused in the offence punishable with capital sentence falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. did not disentitle the accused for concession of bail

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.