Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TAJA VS Respondent: MST. ZARINA AND 3 OTHERS
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 2245
[Lahore]
Before Riaz Ahmad, J
TAJA‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. ZARINA and 3 others‑‑Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 473/B/C of 1988, decided on 3rd April, 1988.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/148‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Contention that first bail application not having been pressed, a second application was barged, for lack of fresh grounds‑‑Contention, held, misconceived as fresh grounds would always be available to accused to file fresh bail application as new development takes place from day to day in course of investigation till challan submitted to the Trial Court.
P L D 1986 SC 173 ref.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497 (5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/148‑‑Bail, cancellation of Co--accused allegedly caused Dang blow whereas all other accused were attributed a joint Lalkara‑‑Cancellation of bail, declined in circumstances.
Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Ghazi M.A. Rashid for the State
Inayat Ullah Cheema for Respondents.
ORDER
In support of this application for cancellation of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner has in the first instance raised a legal objection to the effect that the first bail application on behalf of the petitioner was not pressed on 13th of December, 1987 and, therefore, the second bail application, in which the bail was allowed was not maintainable because no fresh ground was available to the respondent Sardara.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon PLD 1986 SC 173. I have carefully perused the judgment. It may be stated here that it was rightly pointed out by Mr. Inayatullah Cheema, counsel for the respondents that in course of investigation, in which, on each day, new development takes place and, therefore, fresh ground becomes available till such time the challan is submitted.
It is further submitted by Mr. Inayatullah Cheema, Advocate, that the investigation in this case was completed long after the dismissal of the first bail application and, therefore, there was no bar in the way of the respondent to move another bail application, and furthermore, the dictum of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1986 SC 173 was not attracted.
There is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, the objection raised by Syed Ehtesham Qadir, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner to the grant of bail, is hereby repelled.
Adverting to the merits of the case, it is held that the bail has been rightly granted because only Muhammad Ali co‑accused allegedly had caused a Dang blow whereas all others have been attributed a joint Lalkara. In this view of the matter, it was rightly observed that it was a case of further enquiry and thus the bail was allowed. In these circumstances, no case for interference in bail order is made. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
S.G.D./T‑39/L Petition dismissed.