TAJA Versus MST. ZARINA AND 3 OTHERS

ORDER

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. S.G.D./T‑39/L Petition dismissed.