Principle of Consistency

Accused was an official of Capital Development Authority and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years by Trial Court on the allegations of misuse of his authority

Validity

Prosecution did not get compared handwriting available on withdrawal slips in order to establish that amount was withdrawn and then deposited by same person

Co-accused was acquitted by Trial Court regarding his asset beyond means

In absence of any proof that amounts deposited by accused or any other person on his behalf in his account were outcome of corruption or corrupt practices or it was a legitimate amount

High Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge, as prosecution failed to prove mens rea which was an essential component of S. 9(a)(vi) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

One of the co-accused in the Reference who was behind bars for a much shorter period than the present accused persons, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, on the ground that his prolonged and continued incarceration was unconscionable

Despite strict directions of the High Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, only three more prosecution witnesses had recorded their statements, and seventy-five witnesses still remained to be produced to record their evidence

Moreover the order-sheets of the proceedings before the Accountability Court, showed that the responsibility of the delay in the trial proceedings, could not be entirely saddled upon the accused persons

To keep the accused persons incarcerated in the present case, when a co-accused in the Reference having remained behind bars for a much shorter period had been granted bail on the ground of "unconscionable delay", would not only be legally inappropriate, but would in fact be outrightly unjust

Following the principle of consistency, a case for the grant of post-arrest bail was made out in favour of the accused persons, on the ground of "unconscionable delay"

Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed and consequently accused persons were admitted to bail with the direction that they shall not leave the country or be allowed to leave the country without permission of the Trial Court.

Principle of consistency for grant of bail could be invoked only if the cases of accused persons are of alike nature.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, Ghayr-Jaifah Damihah, Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah, Ghayr-Jaifah Munaqqilah and rioting armed with deadly weapons

Bail, grant of

Cross version

Aggressor party

Determination

Principle of consistency

Injured accused

Case of further inquiry

Two out of five co-accused persons nominated in FIR were released on bail after arrest

Accused also got serious injuries and as per medical report one injury was lacerated wound skin to bone deep on vertex parietal region and kind of weapon used was blunt

Seven persons from complainant party were injured, Danddas and iron rods were recovered from accused belonging to complainant party

Five accused from complainant party were released on bail after arrest

Effect

Cause of death mentioned in postmortem report was severe head injury due to assault which caused severe damage to vital organ (brain) of the body but there was no allegation that accused had caused any head injury

Fatal injury was not attributed to accused

Question of aggression was still to be determined and Churri recovered at the instance of accused from kitchen of his house was not blood stained

Case of accused required further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he along with another abducted the daughter of complainant on gun point and both accused persons committed rape with her

Accused was named in the FIR with specific role

Allegation against accused was prima facie supported by the medical evidence, according to which the hymen of the alleged victim was old torn

Medical examination of alleged victim was conducted after 10 days of abduction

Forensic Science Agency had reported that no semen was detected on the swabs taken from the vaginal area of the victim and after going through the said report medical officer had opined that no fresh intercourse was taken place but the alleged victim was abducted on 21-11-2018 and she was released from the custody of the accused on 26-11-2018, whereas her medical examination was conducted on 01-12-2018, therefore, non-presence of semen on the swabs taken from the vagina of alleged victim was quite natural

Penetration was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape

Penetration was established from the medico-legal report of the alleged victim

Accused was found guilty during the course of investigation and accused was unable to establish any mala fide on the part of the prosecution for his false involvement in the case

Co-accused had been granted post arrest bail by High Court but no allegation of rape was levelled against him and as such the case of the accused was distinguishable from the case of the co-accused

Accused, in circumstances, could not claim the relief of bail on the principle of consistency

Petition of accused for grant of bail was dismissed.

Complainant lodged FIR against accused persons for committing Qatl-i-amd of his brother and Trial Court admitted co-accused persons to bail

Validity

No eye-witness of alleged occurrence and prosecution was relying on statements of witnesses who had allegedly seen petitioner along with co-accused persons accompanying the deceased

Complainant was not in a position to distinguish case of accused from case of co-accused in whose favour discretion to grant bail was exercised

No distinction existed in evidentiary material produced by prosecution before court with respect to allegations against petitioner and co-accused

Mere involvement in heinous offence was no ground for refusing bail to accused who otherwise became entitled for concession of bail

Accused was previously non-convict and was never involved in any other case; he was behind bars since nearly nine months but trial had not seen any fruitful progress

Investigation of case was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration did not serve any useful purpose

Bail was granted, in circumstances.

Object of principle of consistency is to maintain uniformity and consistency of views/decisions in different Benches of Court/Tribunal and is aimed at to foster, develop and channelize system of justice to an extent sufficient enough for general public to repose its firm confidence in same

Principles of consistency and certainty occupy a very prominent position in law of precedent which has to be adhered to in order to maintain discipline in administration of justice.

Complainant alleged that his wife informed him on the phone that two young boys, duly armed with weapons, had entered into their house and on show of force had looted valuable ornaments and cash amount

Complainant nominated the accused persons through supplementary statement

Identification parade was not conducted during the course of investigation

Complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence

No specific role was assigned to any of the accused nor the presence of accused was shown at the time of alleged occurrence

Co-accused had also been granted bail on the same set of evidence, therefore, on the principle of consistency accused was entitled to bail

Challan of the case had been submitted

Tentative assessment of the record revealed that the case was one of further inquiry

Petition for grant of bail was allowed.

Petitioner/accused facing trial under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 had been in custody for the past 2 years and 3 months without conclusion of trial

Delay in conclusion of trial was not attributed to petitioner

Effect

No provision existed in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for statutory bail on account of delay which under S. 497, Cr.P.C. was a right whereas hardship cases were at discretion of court based on particular facts and circumstances of cases

Order passed by High Court had to strike a fair balance in determining factors/considerations in hardship cases in National Accountability Bureau matters whilst exercising its discretion bearing in mind that even a murder could be granted statutory bail as of right provided that requirements of S. 497, Cr.P.C. were met and he might be subject to death penalty on conviction compared to a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail in National Accountability Bureau cases whilst accepting that corruption was a serious crime and a major menace to society

Two of the other co-accused having a similar role as petitioner were granted bail on hardship grounds

High Court keeping in view rule of consistency and in exercise of discretionary powers found petitioner's case as one of hardship

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Allegation against petitioners were that had they appointed 7 bogus teachers in District Quetta and in violation of procedure, activated salaries of alleged bogus teachers

One of the petitioners was retired on in March 2011 and during the period of alleged appointment he was out of country

Question related to another petitioner as to whether he at the relevant time was ex-Deputy District Officer Education, had DDO's power to initiate salaries of bogus teachers or as to whether official / officer of the office of Accountant General had acted in violation of any law, rule or regulation and bringing their case under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, were the exceptional circumstances, and the same were yet to be decided by Trial Court

Reference in question had already been submitted before Trial Court and petitioners were facing their trial

High Court had already confirmed bail before arrest of accused persons in another case on same allegations and petitioners had made out their case for bail

Bail before arrest was confirmed in circumstances.

Plea raised by both the accused was that they were junior officers and they had acted upon the "Non-involvement certificate" issued by previous President of the Bank

Validity

Tinges of mala fide were present and NAB failed to include in the Reference the then President of the Bank who had given the "Non-involvement certificate" which petitioners had acted upon and without which no post-retirement service benefits could have been given to co-accused

Petitioners had nothing to do with re-hiring of co-accused which was apparently done so that he could face disciplinary proceedings although it was strongly objected to by the State Bank of Pakistan

Tinge of mala fide on the part of NAB existed and it was an off shoot case which had nothing to do with huge losses sustained by overseas operations through its lending operations

Relatively minor loss to the Bank was attributed to the petitioners, which could be recovered from the co-accused and there was complete lack of material to show any connivance with any of the other accused in major overseas operations scam

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioner, was entitled to be released on bail on the basis of principle of consistency.

Accused, was also to be released on bail on the basis of principle of consistency.

All petitioners were regularly attending Trial Court where their guilt was yet to be determined and they could well be given their due at the end of the trial, if found so deserving

Basic principle of criminal administration of justice was not to keep one behind bars but to give due for the offence

Bail was allowed in circumstances

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

When in F.I.R. a similar role of general nature had been assigned to all accused then grant of bail was an entitlement of all accused and not just co-accused

Being, difficult at bail stage to distinguish case of accused from his co-accused persons, therefore, present case was a case of further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

No weapon of crime was recovered from spot and investigation in the case was almost complete, therefore, case of accused was one of further inquiry

Co-accused had already been released on bail, who initially stated the episode, hence principle of consistency was to be adopted in the matter

Sharp conflict in ocular and medical evidence was on record, with no repetition of act/fire nor there was any fracture, besides non-mentioning of motive in F.I.R.

Nothing on record suggested that accused was a previous convict, habitual or hardened or dangerous criminal, therefore, accused was entitled to concession of bail

Accused had been behind the bars since his arrest and he was no more required by police

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners were nominated as accused in reference filed by NAB, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating members of public at large and causing loss to public exchequer to the extent of Rs. 5.64 billion

Plea raised by petitioners was that no role had been assigned to them and whole case was based on documentary evidence, veracity of the . same would be determined at trial stage

Validity

Not sufficient to merely allege that heinous offence was committed but such contentions required unbroken chain leading towards crime

No direct allegation was levelled against petitioners except misfeasance

Whole reference revolved upon co-accused, as was evident from record and no evidence was available to connect direct involvement of petitioners in subject matter prima facie and with reasonable grounds

Prosecution would have an opportunity to prove the guilt of petitioners by producing cogent evidence at the time of trial-ht cases of liability of misuse of authority, without any direct proof of beneficiary or involvement, post arrest and pre-arrest bail could be granted

Role of one co-accused was more than the petitioners, who had already been granted bail by High Court, therefore, petitioners were entitled for same treatment on the score of plea of rule of consistency

Case of both the petitioners fell in the category of further inquiry and they were entitled to bail

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was not attributed any specific role and complainant through supplementary statement alleged that fatal injury was caused by accused

Counter version of the occurrence had been put forward by accused

One of the accused in counter version was allowed bail by Supreme Court

Occurrence was not pre-meditated and it was case of further probe and inquiry

Bail was allowed.

Accused was not found by police to be involved in the matter, he was declared innocent in successive investigations and nothing was recovered from him

No specific injury was attributed to him and two of the co-accused had already been granted bail and there was nothing on record to indicate that the complainant had filed any petition for cancellation of bail of co-accused

Effect

Question of petitioner's bail required further inquiry and on that score he had made out a case

Bail was allowed.

Conviction of accused was primarily based on extra judicial confession of principal accused, which he made before two prosecution witnesses

Principal accused and three other co-accused had been released on bail by way of suspending their sentences

Effect

Accused was prima facie on better footing as he had neither caused any injury to deceased nor had any motive to participate in the occurrence

Recovery of .30 bore pistol shown to have been recovered from the possession of accused during investigation was of no consequence

Supreme Court suspended the sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was released on bail.

Four persons were nominated in F.I.R., to be armed with hatchets and all four accused were stated to have cause injuries

One co-accused, out of four was granted bail and the other had been let-off by police

Accused had got recorded his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. but story narrated by him was different than the version in F.I.R.

Even otherwise three years and three months had been passed but trial did not proceed

Effect

High Court found it unfair to keep accused behind bars for indefinite period and expeditious trial of case was right of every citizen

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Superior courts under S. 497 read with S. 498, Cr.P.C. have right to form independent opinion in respect of involvement of an accused, notwithstanding the fact that one of the co-accused has been released on bail

Provision relating to the grant of bail on the principle of consistency does not apply stricto senso when accused are more than one.

Respondent was employee of the Company, who along with some other employees was removed from service on the charge of theft

Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent and reinstated him in service

Plea raised by Company was that it did not have statutory rules, therefore, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the matter

Validity

Employees of Oil and Gas Development Company continued to be governed under Service Regulations framed in year, 1994, unless those were varied and amended or repealed as the case might be

Principal accused who allegedly transported pipes joints in question, was reinstated into service by department

No pecuniary loss was suffered by the company and pipes joints in question were recovered and restored to company

Appellant-company neither raised any question of law of public importance within the meaning of Art. 212 of the Constitution nor raised any illegality to warrant interference

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondent was employee of the Company, who along with some other employees was removed from service on the charge of theft

Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent and reinstated him in service

Plea raised by Company was that it did not have statutory rules, therefore, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the matter

Validity

Employees of Oil and Gas Development Company continued to be governed under Service Regulations framed in year, 1994, unless those were varied and amended or repealed as the case might be

Principal accused who allegedly transported pipes joints in question, was reinstated into service by department

No pecuniary loss was suffered by the company and pipes in question were recovered and restored to company

Appellant company neither raised any question of law of public importance within the meaning of Art. 212 of the Constitution nor raised any illegality to warrant interference

Appeal was dismissed.

Prosecution. failed to satisfy the court as to whether signatures on alleged bogus Khata were compared with the handwriting of the accused

No comparison report from competent forum was produced and there was nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence

Case of the accused. was not, prima facie, distinguishable from that of the principal accused who had already been released on bail

Rule of consistency, therefore, entitled the accused to the concession of bail

Case of the accused was, in fact, even on better footing because he was ascribed a role of lesser magnitude as compared to his co-accused already admitted to bail

Ad interim bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Only one fire arm injury was attributed to accused but according to post-mortem report there was another injury caused to deceased by blunt weapon

Trial Court convicted accused and awarded him death penalty but High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life

Validity

Complainant party failed to establish charge against co-accused by any solid evidence, thus accused should have been equally treated

Manner of commission of incidence on the face of record was neither natural nor probable and motive was also not proved by prosecution

Trial Court as well as High Court suffered from misconstruction of evidence and wrongly passed conviction which could not sustain in law

In order to sustain conviction on capital charge, evidence must come from independent and unimpeachable source rather than from tainted and inimical witnesses without any independent corroboration

Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused

Appeal was allowed.

Death sentence awarded to all accused persons by Trial Court was converted into life imprisonment by High Court except appellant-accused, whose death sentence was maintained

Validity

Prosecution had proved accusation against all accused persons by producing trustworthy evidence

Eye-witnesses had assigned role of firing to all accused persons armed with different kinds of weapons and had not assigned exclusively any specific role to appellant-accused

All accused persons had participated in occurrence resulting in death of deceased

Crime empties and weapon had been sent together to Forensic Science Laboratory, thus, its positive report could not be taken into consideration

Case of appellant-accused, in the absence of any distinctive features, could not be separated from remaining accused persons, and thus would deserve similar treatment and sentence

Principle of consistency could be pressed into service in such case

Supreme Court accepted appeal and converted death sentence of appellant-accused to that of life imprisonment.

Accused was not named in F.I.R. and was implicated along with ten others in supplementary statement of complainant in which only suspicion was cast upon the accused and others for committing murder of his deceased sister

Witnesses on whose information complainant had recorded supplementary statement only stated to have seen the accused and others leaving house of deceased

Effect

As to how complainant formed suspicion about murder having been committed by accused and others was a mystery

Although some gold ornaments and a knife were recovered from accused during investigation, however, the same were effected after about one year and three months, therefore, such recovery was not of much significance and could not, prima facie, connect accused with commission of offence

Co-accused from whom two gold rings and another co-accused from whom blood-stained Chhurri was recovered, were allowed bail by High Court, keeping in view the principle of consistency, accused was also entitled to grant of bail-Bail was granted to accused in circumstances.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted declared gross profit of assessee although it was not maintaining quantitative analysis, on the ground that it was not possible to maintain record of quantities bought and sold by a retail stores dealing in innumerable goods

In previous two assessments of the assessee, gross profit was accepted and authorities did not file any reference before High Court

Validity

Reasons assigned by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were unexceptionable and in view of non-filing of reference applications against the order for previous years, the department had accepted order of the Tribunal

High Court keeping in view the previous history of the case of assessee, answered the question referred in affirmative

Reference was accepted in circumstances.

Employees opted for voluntary retirement but before any order was passed by the authorities, employees withdrew their options

Authorities enforced the option already given by the employees and retired them

Service Tribunal, on challenging such order by employees, reinstated the employees in service

Validity

Judgment of Service Tribunal was in consonance with the law

Principle of equity, fair play and justice .required that since employees in earlier appeals were reinstated in service by Service Tribunal, the case of present employees being on the same footings should also be accepted

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal was refused.

S. 497/498-Bail-Principle of consistency-Co-accused attributed same role as that of petitioner released on bail-Petitioner, held, should also be released on bail on principle of requirement of consistency in same case.