' RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J.--- Through this consolidated order, we intend to dispose of five bail applications as it arises from one F.I.R. And since common question of law is involved.
2. The brief facts leading to these bail applications and as alleged in the F.I.R. Bearing No, 65/95 of Police Station Market Hyderabad, are that on 23-5-1995, when the concerned S.H.O. Was on patrolling duty along with a police party in the vicinity of Examination Centres, they found 12 persons standing on the road and in their presence accused Kamran Arain and Shahid Shaikh threw crackers outside the Examination Centre of the High School which burs, into great voice. It is further alleged that upon hearing such blast one A.S.t Aftab Ahmed came out of the Examination Centre and arrested Kamran Arain, Muhammad Shahid Shaikh, Ustad Mobeen Shaikh and Muhammad Farooq Shaikh in presence of Mashirs A.S.I. Muhammad Yaseen Brohi and A.S.I. Sher Zaman. Besides these four accused, the said police party also identified other persons who were present at the spot namely (1) Naseem alias Naseemo Awan, (2) Pervaiz alias Thooto, (3) Rahat Pappu, (4) Yameen Bhora, (5) Aslam alias Allam Chundrigar, (6) Asghar Painter, (7) Bholu Muhajir,
(8) Ayub Kohati Pathan. It is alleged, that they made their escape good.
3. We have heard Messrs Ghulam Moinuddin Baloch, Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Faiz Muhammad Qureshi, Shuaib Shibli and Mr. Shaukat Ali Behlim, Advocates for the applicants and Mr. Dhani Bux Dayo, Advocate for the State. We have also perused police papers,
4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the four co-accused namely Kamran Arain, Muhammad Mubeen, Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Shahid Shaikh against whom specific allegations are made in the F.I.R. Have been granted bail by this Court and that the rule of consistency demand that all the present accused/applicants be also released on bail. That no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants. That till this date the prosecution has failed to obtain report of the Explosive Expert to determine whether the so-called crackers which were exploded outside the Examination Centre contains any explosive substance.
That the applicants who are all admittedly students, are in jail for more than 8 months and that their further detention will destroy their entire career. It is also.. Argued that no recoveries were made from the present applicants. In support of all these arguments, the learned counsel have cited several reported cases. Mr. Dhani Bux Dayo, Advocate appearing for the State, in view of above said factual as well as legal position has extended his no object to grant of all the five bail applications.
5. Time and again, our Honorable Supreme Court has held that where one accused is granted bail and the other co-accused, who is also placed in similar and identical circumstances, then the rule of consistency requires that such co-accused be also released on bail. For any reference see the case of Muhammad Fazal alias Bedi v. The State 1979 SCM R 9, Khadim Hussain v. The State 1983 SCMR 124, Abdul Salam v. The state 1980 SCM R 142. In a recent case of Muhammad Bashir v. The State, Honorable Supreme Court has again followed the principle of consistency and declined to interfere with the order of High Court. In the case of Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi the Honorable Supreme Court while considering the bail plea of applicant who was involved in a case under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. Has held as follows:-- "Without going into the merits of the case and the various rulings mentioned in the petition for leave to appeal requiring our consideration and interpretation, we think that the petitioner should be released on bail on the principle of requirement of consistency in the same case and for the similar reason that the co-accused to whom a role similar to that of the petitioner was attributed had been so released by another learned Judge of the same High Court."
6. In the present case no role has been assigned to the present applicants. If any role is assigned in the F.I.R. It is against the co-accused who were granted bail by this Court. Accused Muhammad Mubeen and Muhammad Farooq were granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No,596 of 1995, co- accused Kamran was granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No,649 of 1995 and Muhammad Shahid Shaikh was granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No,663 of 1995. We are of the considered view that the present applicants are on a better footing than the other co-accused who have been granted bail earlier by this Court.
7. There is another angle to look at this case. Learned Advocate appearing for the State has admitted, after referring to the police papers that so far the mandatory requirement of obtaining sanction as provided under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, has not been availed by the prosecution, and therefore, there is no likelihood that the trial will commence in the near future. In a recent case a Division Bench of this Court allowed an appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction on the ground that in the absence of sanction, the trial was held in violation of mandatory provisions of law and therefore, the entire proceedings stands vitiated. For reference see the case of Suhail Ahmed v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 177, Rasheed Ahmed v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271 and the case of Syed Mukhtar Ahmed v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2181.
8. Since we are of the opinion that in view of rule of consistency the present applicants are entitled for bail, as such, there is no need of discussing the other arguments as urged by the learned advocates appearing for the applicants. It would be, sufficient to observe that the case of the accused/applicants are of further enquiry. Accordingly bail is granted to all the five applicants/accused who shall be released on bail upon furnishing one surety of Rs,50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.