Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application No.826 of 1987, decided on 19th July, 1987
---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/459--West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D--Bail--Bail application of accused moved before was not pressed and was dismissed by High Court as not pressed--No fresh ground taken in second bail application before High Court and ground urged therein same as was taken in earlier petition--Counsel for accused stated that certain documents were not available but no such request was made and no permission sought from High Court for filing a subsequent bail application--Second bail application on same ground, held, was not maintainable.
State v. Zubair P L D 1986 S C 173 rel.
Nooruddin Sarki for Applicant.
A . R . Kazi, A ddl. A.-G. for the State.
The applicant is involved in a case under section 307/459 read with section 34 PPC and section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, 1965. The first bail application moved by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, by order dated 26-1-1987, whereafter the applicant moved Crl. Bail Application No.299/77 before this Court at Sukkur and my order dismissing the earlier bail application reads as follows:----
"Learned counsel does not press the bail application. Cr. B. A .299/87 is dismissed as not pressed."
Thereafter a second bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, which had been dismissed by order dated 16-6-1987. The applicant has now moved the present bail application before this Court.
No fresh ground has been taken in the present bail application. The grounds taken up in the present bail application are the same, as had been taken in the earlier bail application being Crl. Bail Application No.299/87 before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant was referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Zubair P L D 1986 S C 173, where inter alia the following principle relating to bail has been laid down by the Supreme Court:---
"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 ground and made the basis of any subsequent bail application."
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the previous bail application had been withdrawn, as reliance was going to be placed on certain documents on behalf of the applicant which were not available then and, therefore, it is submitted that the present second bail application is maintainable.
In view of the clear principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the State v. Zubair P L D 1986 S C 173, in my view, the present second bail application is not maintainable, as the same grounds have been taken as had been taken in the previous bail application. Previous bail application was not pressed, which means that the grounds, which had been taken in the previous bail application and were available to the applicant, had not been pressed and as such a second bail application on the same grounds is not maintainable. The case of the applicant is not that there is any fresh ground. As observed earlier, the case put up by Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, learned counsel for the applicant, is that certain documents were not available. No such request had been made and no permission has been taken from this court for filing a subsequent bail application.
In the circumstances, Criminal Bail Application No.826/.87 is dismissed as not maintainable.
If any fresh ground becomes available or some evidence is recorded, it will be open to the applicant to file a fresh bail application before the trial Court on such fresh ground. The applicant had been arrested in December 1986, in this case under section 307/459 PPC. The trial Court may expedite the recording of evidence of the complainant and eye-witnesses as soon as possible.
M.Y.H./Q-6/K Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer