AHMED HUSSAIN Versus STATE

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH J. ‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 24‑4‑1986 dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail pending trial of a case against him and a co‑accused under section 307, P.P. C. Since the impugned order of the High Court is brief it may be reproduced hereunder:

2. "The earlier application made on behalf of same applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 10‑3‑1986. The present application has been based mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to comply with the direction of this Court inasmuch as that evidence has to be recorded without further delay. I am afraid that non‑compliance of the direction of this Court does not provide fresh ground for repeating the application, As such the application is dismissed."

3. By the earlier order the same learned Judge in the High Court had dismissed petitioner's application for the same relief as it was withdrawn by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel has however requested that "the trial Court may be directed to record the evidence particularly eye‑witnesses without further delay". This request was granted by the learned Judge and he passed the order accordingly.

4. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submit that the learned Judge in the High Court should have decided the case on merits on the second application filed by the petitioner. "''

5. This plea is wholly unwarranted for the only argument advanced by the learned counsel who appeared before the High Court was that since the learned trial Judge had failed to comply the earlier direction of the High Court in so much as evidence was not recorded, petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. This plea has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge.

6. In the circumstances all that the petitioner can legitimately request is that the earlier direction of the High Court that the evidence particularly of eye‑witnesses should be recorded without further delay. This request being legitimate, we direct that the trial Court shall grant priority to this case in the matter of recording evidence particularly the eye‑witnesses in the case.

7. Subject to these remarks, the petition is otherwise dismissed.

8. M.I. /A‑4/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed