MUHAMMAD AZAM and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a second application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Muhammad Azam and others, following the dismissal of their previous bail application. The core legal question is whether the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient fresh grounds or merits to warrant the grant of bail after their initial application was rejected due to their own conduct in delaying the proceedings. The Court held that the application must be dismissed. It observed that no new grounds had arisen since the previous dismissal, noting that a revision petition filed by the respondents in a separate private complaint had been allowed, thereby negating the petitioners' reliance on that ongoing litigation. Furthermore, on merits, the Court found that the petitioners were specifically armed and had inflicted serious injuries on multiple victims, including fractures and head injuries. The Court affirmed the principle that bail is not a matter of right where the accused is responsible for delaying the trial, and where the merits of the case, specifically the gravity of the injuries inflicted, do not support the concession of bail.
- Can a second bail application be granted when no fresh grounds have arisen since the dismissal of the first application?
- Does the conduct of the accused in causing delays in the trial proceedings affect their entitlement to bail?
- Is bail appropriate where the accused are alleged to have inflicted serious injuries on victims?
ORDER
' This is a second application for bail on behalf of the petitioners. Earlier, Criminal Miscellaneous No,2340-B of 2001 was moved but the same was dismissed as the prosecution witnesses were in attendance about six times but they were not cross-examined. It was informed that complaint had been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners wherein process had been issued to summon the respondents but against the order of summoning, revision had been filed which had not been decided by then. Holding that the accused-persons were responsible for causing the delay, the application was dismissed.
2. The fresh application has been moved. However, no fresh ground has accrued in favor of the petitioners. The fact that the accused-respondents in the private. Complaint instituted by the accused-petitioners were summoned but the same had been assailed before the Court of Sessions through revision petition which has been allowed. The copy of the same has been .Placed on the file by the complainant in the present case which means that there is no fresh ground available to the petitioners in support of their plea for grant of bail.
3. Even on merits, Muhammad Azam and Khadim Hussain were armed with hatchet and iron rod respectively. Khadim Hussain inflicted a blow on the leg of Dilbar Hussain which resulted in serious injury on his leg. Muhammad Azam inflicted hatchet blow from its blunt side on the same point i,e, leg of Dilbar Hussain as a result of which his leg was broken. Khadim Hussain inflicted yet another blow on the head of Mazhar Hussain. Muhammad Azam gave another blow on the head of Mst.
Iqbal Bibi, both husband and wife were seriously injured. The co-accused, thereafter, caused many injuries on the injured person after they fell down. No case for bail was made out even on merits.
Keeping in view that the petitioners are not entitled to concession of bail on merits, and also on account of their conduct that the delay has been caused by them and lastly their previous application for bail had been dismissed by this Court on 31-5-2001, no ground for bail is made out.
This application is, therefore, rejected.
Application rejected.