In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has shed light on the principle of consistency in bail matters, emphasizing the real essence of equality before the law. The ruling, delivered in the case of Mohammad Atif v. The State (Crl.P.298/2023), provides crucial insights into the application of the rule of consistency in granting bail to accused individuals.
The judgment underscores the fundamental right to equality before the law enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution, which ensures that individuals in similar circumstances are treated alike. It clarifies that the rule of consistency in bail matters aims to maintain fairness, reduce arbitrary decision-making, and uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.
According to the ruling, the benchmark for applying the rule of consistency is not solely the role attributed to the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), but also the material collected during the police investigation. This means that the court must consider whether the accused and their co-accused, who have been granted bail, are similarly placed in similar circumstances.
The judgment further explains that the rule of consistency is based on Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution, ensuring a level playing field and fairness in adjudicating cases of co-accused. It emphasizes that the right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution must be extended fairly and without discrimination to individuals seeking bail.
In cases where the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), such as intentional murder punishable under Section 302, PPC, the court considers three grounds for granting post-arrest bail. These include factors like the accused being a minor, a woman, or a sick person, delay in trial proceedings, and whether there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the accused’s guilt.
The ruling clarifies that the determination of bail under Section 497(2) of the CrPC requires a comprehensive assessment of the evidence collected during the investigation. It emphasizes that the applicability of the rule of consistency hinges on the congruence between the cases of the accused and their co-accused.
“For the determination of the question under Section 497(2), CrPC, as to whether or not there exist any “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accused has committed the alleged offense, the courts have to appraise although tentatively the whole material available on the record of the case. This question cannot be determined by merely examining the contents of the FIR. Essentially, it is the tentative assessment of the evidence collected in the investigation both for and against the accused that is determinative of the said question. Likewise, to decide upon the applicability of the rule of consistency for granting bail under Section 497(2), CrPC, the courts have to examine the whole material available on the record of the case. Without doing so, it cannot be determined whether the accused who claims the benefit of this rule and his co-accused who has been granted bail are similarly placed in similar circumstances. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds in holding that the benchmark for applying the rule of consistency is not only the role attributed to the accused in the FIR but also the material collected in the investigation.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment sets a clear benchmark for consistency in bail judgments, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and equally under the law. It underscores the importance of upholding principles of justice and transparency in the legal system.
