MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 148 and 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that he was not named in the initial First Information Report, was implicated via a supplementary statement of no legal value, and that the investigation was complete. Conversely, the State and the complainant opposed the application, highlighting that the petitioner's previous bail application for the same relief had been dismissed on merits by the Court in 2012, and that no fresh grounds existed to warrant a reconsideration. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite a prior dismissal of a bail application on merits in the same case without demonstrating any new or changed circumstances. The Court held that as the petitioner failed to establish any fresh grounds since the previous dismissal, the petition lacked merit. The principle laid down is that a second bail application in the same case is not maintainable absent a showing of new, material circumstances that justify a departure from the previous order.
- Can a petitioner file a second bail application in the same criminal case if the previous application was dismissed on merits?
- Is a change in circumstances required to entertain a subsequent bail petition after a prior dismissal?
- Does the absence of new grounds justify the dismissal of a repeat bail application?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL SAM! KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Akram petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 604/11, dated 1-10-2011 registered at Police Station Sadar, Pakpattan Sharif in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the local police. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And he has been involved in this case through a supplementary statement. The supplementary statement has got no value in the eyes of law. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner on are record. Wife of the deceased namely Mst. Nazeeran Bibi has filed a private complaint against the petitioner and other persons in which the accused has been summoned. It is a case of two versions and it is yet to be determined as to who is aggressor and or aggressed. During the investigation of this case recovery has not been effected from the petitioner. The investigation of this case is complete, the person of the petitioner is not required by the police for further investigation, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The learned counsel has relied upon 1996 SCM R 1845 and 2009 SCM R 324.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that previous bail petition of the petitioner Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2229-B of 2012 was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 5-3-2012. There is no fresh ground for the petitioner to re-approach this Court for the same relief on the grounds which have already taken up and declined. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found guilty#and the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It has been noticed that previous petition of the petitioner for the same relief in the same criminal case, i,e, Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2229-B of 2012 was dismissed by this Court by attending the merits of the case vide order dated 5-3-2012. No fresh ground has accrued to the petitioner at the present juncture to get a different decision. The case-law produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not inapt with the facts and circumstances of this case. In the backdrop of such a situation this petition has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed as such.