Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAROON RASHID VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 2143
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J
HAROON RASHID‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.807‑B of 1988 decided on 22nd March, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 326 & 307/34‑‑Bail‑ Co‑accused released on bail‑‑No overt act or motive attributed to co‑accused who was released on bail‑‑Accused chasing injured and exhorting his co‑accused to throw acid on him‑‑Accused having strong motive against injured‑‑Case of accused distinguishable from that of co‑accused released on bail‑‑Principle of consistency, held, would not be attracted in circumstances‑‑Bail refused.
Malik Amjad Hussain for Petitioner.
Mehr Ghulam Ali for Complainant.
M.Saleem Shad for the State
ORDER
Haroon Rashid petitioner has moved this petition for bail' in a case registered against him and two others under sections 324, 326 and 307 P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P,C.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 25‑7‑1987 Abdul Qayyum injured was going towards the shop situate in Grain Market, Sillanwali. On the way Haroon Rashid petitioner started chasing him, When Abdul Qayyum reached near the office of the Market Committee, co‑accused Nasrullah and Naeemi alias Naeem came riding a cycle from the opposite direction. The petitioner exhorted them to throw acid on Abdul Qayyum‑ upon which Naeem alias Naeemi threw acid on Abdul Qayyum causing burns on his arms, chin and right side of the body.
Motive alleged by the prosecution was that the petitioner wanted to make friendship with Abdul Qayyum injured but he declined to oblige him.
3. The petitioner was admitted to bail by Judicial Magistrate, Sargodha, on 9‑8‑1987. The complainant moved an application for cancellation of the same which was allowed on 10‑10‑1987 and his bail was cancelled. The petitioner filed a revision petition against this order which was dismissed by me on 10‑1‑1988.
4. Fresh ground urged for bail by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that co‑accused Nasrullah has been admitted to bail and in view of the principle of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession as his case is almost identical with that of aforesaid Nasrullah.
Learned counsel for the State, and the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that the case of Nasrullah co‑accused is distinguishable from that of the petitioner who had a very strong motive against Abdul Qayyum injured PW.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. In the F.I.R. co‑accused Nasrullah is not shown to have any motive against Abdul Qayyum nor any overt act has been attributed to him. So far as the petitioner is concerned the allegations are that he chased the injured PW, exhorted his co‑accused to throw acid on him and had a motive against him as he (injured PW) had declined to make friendship with him. His case is clearly distinguishable from that of co‑accused Nasrullah. In the circumstances principle of consistency is not available in his case. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
S.A./H‑64/L. Bail refused.