ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Bail Appln. NO. D- 41 of 2012.

Dated                                   order with signature of hon’ble Judge.

1. For orders on office objection as flag A.

2. For  Hearing.                                                

31.1.2013.

                        Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, advocate for the complainant.

                        Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, State Counsel.

======

SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH,J.:-  Applicants named above through the instant application have prayed for post arrest bail in a case Crime No.27/2010 registered  at Police Station Golo Daro for an offence U/S 302, 324, 364, 429, 436, 452, 149 PPC, 17(3) of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979  and Section 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

                        Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, representing the applicants, at the very outset  without touching merits of the case   contended that by an earlier order dated 20.10.2011 this Court has admitted the co-accused Shahid S/O Nihal and Khan Jan S/O Hassan on bail.  Subsequently co-accused Sanaullah was also granted bail by an order dated 18.05.2012 on the rule of consistency.   It is next submitted  by the learned counsel  for the applicants  that  the case of the applicants is identical as the names of the present applicants are not mentioned in the FIR but they have been nominated by way of supplementary statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C.

                        Conversely learned State Counsel  assisted by learned counsel for the complainant admitted  the grant of bail  to the remaining three accused named above to whom the identical role has been assigned but  contended that since  the applicants were implicated by way of supplementary statement record U/S 161 Cr.P.C which shows  the involvement of the applicants.   Learned State Counsel however, admitted that previously bail was conceded  to the co-accused Shahid, Khan Jan and Sanaullah on the ground that neither  any recovery was effected from them nor their names are appearing in the FIR and that identical role has been assigned to the present applicants.

                        It is also admitted fact  that there is no allegation against the present applicants of causing injury to any one. On the principle of rule of consistency since the accused persons having similar role have been granted bail  by this Court  therefore, the applicants are entitled to bail. 

                        Keeping in mind  the dictum as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abid Ali v. The State reported as 2011 SCMR 161 that the bail can not be withheld  as punishment and it was further held that  for the purpose of bail law is not stretched  in favour of prosecution.  As the  name of petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR but his name was included in list of accused in the supplementary statement, the honourable  Supreme Court  held the case of the petitioner  falls  under the category of further inquiry.

                        Resultantly, applicants are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/= each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

JUDGE

                                                                        JUDGE