SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.:- The applicant Shafakat Ali son of Liaqaut booked in Crime No. 306 of 2012 under section 392/353/324/34 PPC registered at Police Station Steel Town seeks bail mainly on the ground of rule of consistency as his two companions to whom identical role was assigned in commission of offence are enlarged on bail.
2. The prosecution story as stated in the FIR lodged by complainant Noor is that three accused person duly armed with weapons robbed him and those were arrested during encounter and recovery was also affected from them. Such memo of recovery and arrest was prepared at the spot. On conclusion of usual investigation they were charged sheeted.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case due to malafide intention and ulterior motives by the police as he has refused to meet the illegal demand of gratification demanded by the police. Learned counsel reiterated that keeping in view the dictum as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOLANA ABDUL AZIZ V/S THE STATE (2009 SCM R 1210) and MUHAMMAD DAUD & ANOTHER V/S THE STATE (2008 SCM R 173) the applicant is entitled for concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency as co-accused Sher Ali has been granted bail on 04.12.2012 and another co-accused Ghaffar Khan has also been granted bail by Sessions Judge, Malir in the instant case and subsequently dismissed the bail of the applicant due to non-reading and misreading of facts and could not applied its judicial mind. It is next contended that even otherwise, the prosecution case requires further enquiry as it is the case of ineffective firing; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant/accused and alleged recovery has foisted upon him just to strength the case of prosecution; that lesser punishment i.e. four years is to considered during tentative assessm ent of the case. Hence per learned counsel alleged offence is not falling within the ambit of section 497(i) Cr.P.C.
4. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh submits that keeping in view the rule of consistency; he has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
5. While granting the bail to co-accused Sher Ali in Criminal Bail Application No. 1237 of 2012, this court has observed that during encounter no one has received bullet injuries hence the case would not fall under section 324 Cr.P.C.. Learned Single Judge of this court has further observed that under section 392 Cr.P.C. offence is punishable for ten years and not less than four years, therefore, lesser punishment should be considered by the court in the matter of bail. Learned Judge also held that applicant is in custody since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation. The robbed property has not been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and keeping in view the dictum as laid down in the case of ALI AHMED V/S THE STATE reported in 2007 YLR 1144, bail was granted to the co-accused.
6. Admittedly, case of applicant is at par with the case of the said co-accused, therefore, keeping in view the statement of no objection recorded by learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh, applicant is also entitled to equal treatment as meted out to the aforesaid two co-accused in the eyes of law following the rule of consistency. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the cases reported as MUHAMMAD AZAM V/S THE STATE (2008 SCM R 249) and MUHAMMAD DAUD V/S THE STATE (2008 SCM R 173)
7. Whatever mentioned above, I reached at conclusion that the applicant is entitled to concession of bail. The applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.