27/07/2025
It is trite law that the rule of consistency is applicable only when one person’s case is at par with the accused whose post-arrest bail has been granted.
The evidentiary value of confessional statement of co-accused is to be determined by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. However, at the bail stage, a tentative assessment is permissible only if the confessional statement is corroborated by independent incriminating material available on record.
It is a settled proposition of law that in cases falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of post-arrest bail is restricted to the exceptions enumerated therein, namely:
(i) under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., where the accused is a woman, minor, or a sick or infirm person;
(ii) under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., where there is an unreasonable delay in the conclusion of the trial, not attributable to the accused; and
(iii) under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., where the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. However, upon tentative assessment of the available material, the petitioner’s case does not appear to qualify as one of further inquiry so as to bring it within the purview of Section 497(2),Cr.P.C.
It is a settled proposition of law that where there appear reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
At the bail stage, deeper scrutiny of material available on record is unwarranted, as that would affect the merits of the case at the trial.
However, a tentative assessment of material available on record prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence which falls within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Crl.P.L.A.1425/2024
Ghazi Arab v. The State
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
22-07-2025