Rule of consistency

Concession of bail — The case of appellants Muhammad Siddique and Maqbool Hussain is at par with the case of Muhammad Waheed and Muhammad Hussain — Thus, following the rule of consistency, appellants Muhammad Siddique and Maqbool Hussain should not have been meted with a discriminatory treatment — They are also entitled to the concession of bail. Muhammad Ajmal v. Muhammad Naeem and 3 others 2001 SCR 164 (A)
The Government instructed the department to adjust all Foresters whoses services were terminated being junior most — The appellants are serving in the department for more than 8 years on the order of the Court — They have crossed upper age limit — All other junior employees have been accommodated — Held: Rule of consistency demands that the case of appellants has to be considered on sympathetic grounds by the respondents. Shahzad Abdul Hussain v. Chief Conservator of Forests & 5 others 2008 SCR 512 (D)
Bail grant of — The case of Faisal Iqbal is at par with the case of Ansar Iqbal and Tariq Mehmood. No overt act is attributed to all the three accused towards deceased and if the other two accused are released on bail why the concession may not be extended to the accused, Faisal Iqbal, who is facing similar allegations — From the tentative assessment of evidence on record. The Court is of the opinion that the nature of allegation against Faisal Iqbal is similar to that of Ansar Iqbal and Tariq Mehmood and on the basis of rule of consistency he is entitled to the concession of bail. Akhtar H.& another v. The State and another 2010 SCR 455 (B) 2001 SCR 164 and 2000 SCR 256 rel.