' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---Pir Bakhsh alias Peeran Ditta petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 215, dated 26-4-2009 registered under sections 379/148/149/337-A(iii)/H(ii), PPC at Police Station Shedani District Rahimyar Khan.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that 5 persons, out of which, one was armed with rifle, other was armed with .12 bore pistol and rest of three persons were armed with sticks attacked upon the complainant and caused him injuries with butt of rifle and blows with sticks. According to the complainant, he and the witnesses identified the petitioner, GhulaM Rasool, Zulifqar and Abid out of those five persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific role during the occurrence has been attributed to the petitioner and joint beating is alleged against the petitioner, Zulifqar, Ghulam Rasool and Abid and one unknown person. Further contends that his co-accused namely Zulifqar and Ghulam Rasool were released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide orders, dated 6-10-2009 and 12-10-2009 respectively and the case of the present petitioner is at par with that of the said co-accused persons.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP for the State could not distinguish the case of the petitioner from the case of his co-accused Zulifqar and Ghulam Rasool who have already been released on bail.
5. Heard. Record Perused.
6. Rule of consistency is always taken into consideration by the Courts since long because a person cannot be denied for the grant of bail whose case is at par of an accused who had already been released on bail.
The Courts have to give equal treatment to the accused persons having one and the same'role in the same case. Reliance upon the cases of Muhammad. Fazal alias Bodi v. The State (1979 SCM R 9), Khadim Hussain v. The State (1983 SCMR 124), Manzoor Ahmad and others v. The State (PLJ 1999 Cr.C. (Lahore) 570) and Muhammad Daud and another v. The State and another (2008 SCM R 173).
As the case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused Zulifqar and Ghulam Rasool who had already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the bail.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs, One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.