Find a Lawyer

SIKANDAR versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 Determination Code (XLV of 1860), Section 3021149/148 Ball Nine of the men who were allegedly armed with guns, rifles and pistols were assigned to the accused in an FIR. Injured which did not cause fire. The life-threatening shot, not known to any of the accused in the FIR, was similar to the role of the accused, attributed to the accomplices, who were allowed to bail. On the principle of consistency, the applicant also granted bail. Expanded le of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 S C M R 9. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

3. Sharif and Adil were admitted to bail mainly on the ground that during the investigation Inspector C.I.A. Okara, had found that there was cross‑firing by the parties and it was not known whose fire had hit the deceased. This aspect was not considered in the previous bail application. It need also be mentioned that in the F.I.R. the fatal shot has not been attributed to any of the accused. According to the post‑mortem report, there was only one injury on the deceased whereas nine persons were named as accused in the F.I.R. who were allegedly armed with guns, rifles and pistol. Three accused, namely, Muhammad, A Hanif and Jafar, were found innocent during the investigation. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that attributed to co‑accused Sharif and Adil in the F.I.R., therefore, on the principle of requirement of consistency, a case for enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara.

M.A.K. Bail allowed.