Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 1750 of 1986, decided on I lth January, 1987. Criminal

---S. 497--Bail--Fresh application--Previous application on behalf of accused not pressed and was dismissed--Fresh application not carrying any fresh ground, held, not maintainable--Bail refused.

State v. Zubair P L D 1986 S C 173 rel.

Mohammad Amin Mangi for Applicant.

There are three accused in the case including the present applicant. Co-accused Mst. Rehmat Bibi and Amir Ahmed Khan have already been granted bail by this Court. Previously a joint application had been moved before this Court by the applicant Shafiullah and co-accused Mst. Rehmat Bibi in Criminal Bail No. 616/86. By order, dated 4-6-1986, I granted bail to co-accused Mst. Rehmat Bibi. However, the bail application on behalf of applicant Shafiullah was not pressed and his plea for bail was dismissed as not pressed by order, dated 4-6-1986.

This is a second bail application before me by the applicant Shafiullah. It was pointed out on previous dates of hearings to the learned counsel that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of State v. Zubair reported in P L D 1986 S C 173, a second hail application is not maintainable before this Court inasmuch as previous bail application had not been pressed and had been dismissed as such Mr. Muhammad Amin Mangi, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that according to his reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, a subsequent bail application by an accused to a Court is only barred in case his earlier bail application has been dismissed on merits. The submission of the learned counsel does not appear to be correct. I may reproduce here para. 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State v. Zubair P L D 1986 S L 1 73:

"8. It might be useful to mention here that the second or the subsequent bail application to the same Court shall lie only on a fresh ground namely, a ground which did not exist at the time when the first application was made. If a ground was available to the accused at the time when the first bail application was filed and was not 'taken or was not pressed, it cannot be considered as a fresh and made the basis of any subsequent bail application. We may also point out, with respect to the learned application that the mere fact that the learned Judge who had rejected the first bail application of the respondents with the observation that as far as the remaining petitioners (the respondents herein) are concerned no case had been made out for their release on bail, does not mean that the application had not been disposed of on merits. It must be assumed that he had considered all the pleas or grounds raised by the applicant's counsel before him and that the same had not found favour with him. It may be pointed out, with great respect, that the notion that each contention raised before the Court in a bail application must be dealt with separately or repelled by recording elaborate reasoning, is totally misconceived. We are of the view that in the present case the learned Judge who dealt with the second bail application had, in fact, embarked on a review of the order of the learned Judge who had earlier dismissed the first bail application"

As the previous bail application on behalf of the applicant Shafiullah had not been pressed and was dismissed as such, in my view, the present bail application is not maintainable as there is no fresh ground taken in the present bail application. Criminal Bail Application No. 1750/86 is accordingly dismissed.

M.Y.H./S-51/K Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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