' At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to correct die date of F.I.R. As 29-12-2002 instead of 27-12-2002 in the petition. According to him, it was due to typographical mistake. The 'request has been allowed. He has made the necessary correction witii his signature before the Court today.
2. Abdullah alias Sindhi, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,478 dated 29- 12-2002 under section 399/402, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 29-12-2002 at about 6-00 a.m. On secret information, he and his seven co-accused were apprehended by the police when they were armed with lethal weapons and preparing to commit dacoity.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that his co-accused Irshad Hussain has already been allowed bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi on 12-4-2003 and his case is identical to him while his mere involvement in some other cases is no ground to disallow him the relief prayed for; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non-convict.
5. Conversely learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he alongwith his co-accused was apprehended by the police party when they were having lethal weapons and preparing to commit. Dacoity. However, he conceded that Irshad Hussain co-accused has been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, and that he is previous non-convict.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. Admittedly, his co-accused Irshad Hussain has been allowed bail in the instant case by the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12-4-2003. On merits his case is identical to him.
He has been refused relief prayed for by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi for mainly on the ground that he is involved in other cases of different types while he admittedly is not previously convicted person. I may mention here that mere his involvement in other cases would not disentitle him to relief of bail.
8. In view of the grant of bail to the said co-accused Irshad Hussain, he is also entitled to the same relief as per rule of consistency. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than five months.
9. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs,1, 00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.