Jehan Sher vs State S — 2025 MLD 1744 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Jehan Sher VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), 147, 148 & 149---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, ghair jaifah hashimah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he committed murder of the uncle of complainant and caused injuries to other persons---Undisputed fact that the role attributed to the present petitioner as well as to the co-accused,etc., to whom bail had already been granted by the Supreme Court was identical---Admitted fact that it was the plea of the present petitioner as well as of the co-accused in earlier round that it was a case of cross version, however, High Court did not appreciate the same in their favor, however, when the same plea was agitated by co-accused, etc., before the Supreme Court, the same was appreciated in their favor and they were granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2024---Therefore, when at the time of hearing of the earlier bail petition of the petitioner by this Court on 08.10.2024, the ground for grant of bail on the principle of consistency was not available to the accused/ petitioner and it was much thereafter on 16.12.2024 when the said ground had been made available to the petitioner, therefore, such ground could be considered as a fresh ground for the grant of bail---Thus, it might be reiterated that such ground was always considered as a fresh ground, which was not available to the petitioner in the earlier round---If a ground was available in the earlier round and the same had not been taken in the earlier round, then such ground could not be considered as a fresh ground, however, in the present case, the situation was altogether different as the fresh ground i.e., the principle of consistency, was not available to the present petitioner in the earlier round, therefore, the bail application on the fresh ground was maintainable and thus the ground of principle of consistency could be considered for grant of bail to the accused/ petitioner---When the role of the present petitioner and that of co-accused,etc., was identical besides they were charged in the same FIR and when the instant incident had been held as one of cross version by the Supreme Court while granting bail to co-accused, etc., then the present petitioner was also entitled for the same benefit---In that view of the matter, the petitioner's case could not be treated differently and hence, on the basis of the rule of consistency, it would also be relevant to mention here that one of the co-accused had also approached this Court for grant of bail when by then the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2024 was in field and this Court had granted bail to said accused on the ground, which prevailed with the Supreme Court, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the present accused/ petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Jehan Sher vs State S — 2025 MLD 1744 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD