Cr. B.A.No.120 of 2009


Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge



For Hearing.


                        Mr. Inam  Malik, Advocate for  the applicants.

                        Miss Rubina, State counsel.



4.5.2009.                                             O R D E R.



KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.:-   Through this application, applicants  Damsaz Ali and Sudheer Ali both bycaste Ghaloo  have  sought bail in crime No. 84/2008, of P.S  Thariri Muhabat for offences U/Ss 436, 337/A(i), H(ii), 403, 114, 147, 148, 149, 504 PPC, after their   Bail plea advanced before the learned Trial court  was declined vide order  dated 27.02.2009.


            At the  very outset learned counsel for the applicants does not press  Bail Application for applicant Sudheer Ali, which is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.


                        The allegation against the applicant Damsaz  is that he and his             co-accused Mazhar, Shabir and Basheer   were allegedly  armed with guns and on the instigation of co-accused  Allahdino, they made firing in the air.


                        Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that  there is general allegation of  ineffective firing against the applicant Damsaz and the three       co-accused Mazar, Shabir and Basheer, that co-accused Mazhar has been  granted   bail by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2009,  therefore,  he prays for grant of the  same concession of  Bail  to applicant Damsaz on the ground of parity. 


                        Learned state counsel frankly conceded to the grant of Bail.


                        I have given my due consideration to the arguments  addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have  gone through the material placed  before the Court. I find that  co-accused  Mazhar, who was assigned the same role of firing in the air as that of the present applicant Damsaz  has been  admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2009 and as such  the present applicant is  also entitled to be enlarged on Bail on the rule of consistency.  Reliance is placed on the case of  Muhammad Daud and another v. The State (2008 SCMR 173) wherein  the Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted the accused to bail in view of rule of consistency as co-accused in the  said case   had already  been admitted to bail.    Following the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court, the bail is granted to the applicant Damsaz in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) subject to his furnishing solvent surety and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the  learned Trail Court.   Consequently,   this bail application is allowed  to the above extent.