Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 745 of 1983, decided on 13th September, 1983

-- S. 497-Second bail application-Three reports of investigating agencies declaring that accused persons were involved falsely-- State Counsel also not objecting to grant of bail-Bail granted.

1980 S C M R 203 distinguished.

1979 S C M R 377 and P L D 1968 S C 349 fol.

Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Applicants.

Sattar A. Shaikh, Addl. A. G. for the State.

The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted, that this second bail application has been moved on the additional ground, that three police officials in their investigation have found case against the present applicants, as false and have recommended withdrawal of the prosecution, but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, at the time of hearing of earlier bail application, which was dismissed on the sole ground of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case reported in 1980 S C M R 203. In addition to this the learned counsel submitted, that the said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court was in respect of special leave to appeal and in the face of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P L D 1968 S C 349, that no dictum or judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court creates any hurdle in the matter of bail and so as the said judgment cannot be an absolute bar for grant of bail, specially in view of this additional ground urged by him, which is supported by certified copies of the said three reports of the investigation agencies. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon case reported in 1979 S C M R 377.

The learned Addl. A. G. appearing for the State, in view of the above facts and the law cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant does not oppose the above bail application.

I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through my earlier order by which the first bail application moved by the applicants was rejected by me. The sole ground on which I have rejected the earlier bail application was decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 S C M R 203, although on merits, I had come to the conclusion, that this was a fit case for grant of bail. The learned Advocate for the applicant has now additionally relied upon case reported in 1979 S C M R 377, in view of the three reports of the investigating agencies, that the applicants have been falsely involved in this case and there is no evidence forthcoming in support of the prosecution case, as well as on P L D 1968 S C 349 that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 S C M R 203 is not bar to grant of bail on merits, if otherwise this Court considers fit to grant such bail.

The case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P L D 1968 S C 349 was not brought to my notice, when I passed the earlier order nor the reports of the investigating agencies, the certified copies of which have been produced now by the learned Advocate for the applicants were before me. Even otherwise on merits, I have held in earlier order, that this is a fit case for grant of bail and further since the learned Additional Advocate-General has no objection to grant of bail, therefore, and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P L D 1968 S C 349, in view of these facts, I allow above application and direct, that the applicants be released on bail, on their furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs. 30,000 each, with the P. R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

M. A. K. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.