ISLAMABAD - Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the concept of equal justice requires appropriate comparability of roles and overt act attributed to the co-offenders.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Ayesha A Malik declared that in criminal case, wherein co-accused were granted bail but the petitioner was sent behind the bars.
According to the FIR, Bakhti Rahman (petitioner) hit the complainant on his head with a sharp object and caused injury on the left side of his forehead, while the remaining accused persons also gave him stick blows as a result of which the complainant suffered injuries on his left arm, right knee and back.
The petitioner filed the bail application which was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate, Shangla on 02.01.2023. He then moved an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shangla which was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a bail application in the Peshawar High Court (PHC), Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat which was also dismissed on 23.01.2023.
Pakistan Railways ticket reservation system restored after brief disruption
The counsel for the petitioner argued that other co-accused persons who are nominated in the FIR were granted bail by the PHC. He pleaded that the rule of consistency be adhered to and that the same treatment should have been afforded to his client.
The Additional Advocate General opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the specific role of causing fatal injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the role of co-accused who have been granted bail is different, hence the rule of consistency does not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
The judgment said that the court is required to consider overwhelming evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and if the answer is in the affirmative he is not entitled to grant of bail.
It said, so far as the rule of consistency or parity for considering the grant of bail to the petitioner is concerned, in the present facts and circumstances of the case we cannot lose sight of the fact that the roles of the co-accused who were granted bail are distinguishable to the role assigned to the petitioner who caused the fatal injury to the complainant.
Two youngsters killed, one injured by police firing
The court verdict said that the doctrine of parity or rule of consistency in a criminal case elucidates that if the case of the accused is analogous in all respects to that of the co-accused then the benefit or advantage extended to one accused should also be extended to the co-accused on the philosophy that the “like cases should be treated alike.”
It further said that the concept of equal justice requires the appropriate comparability of roles and overt act attributed to the co-offenders, but in case of difference or disparity in the roles due allowance cannot be extended to the co-offenders on the perspicacity that different sentences may reflect different degrees of culpability and or different circumstances.