Reference can be made to the case of “THE STATE
THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL, N.-W. F. P. v. Zubair and
4 others” (PLD 1986 SC 173) wherein the august
Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:--
" It might be useful to mention here that the second
or the subsequent bail application to the same Court
shall lie only on afresh ground namely, a ground
which did not exist at the time when the first
application was made. If a ground was available to
the accused at the time when the first bail application
was filed and was not taken or was not pressed, it
cannot be considered as a fresh and made the basis
of any subsequent bail application. We may also
point out, with respect to the learned Judge, who
dealt with the second bail application that the mere
fact that the learned Judge who had rejected the first
bail application of the respondents with the
observation that as far as the remaining petitioners
(the respondents herein) are concerned no case had
been made out for their release on bail, does not
mean that the application had not been disposed of
on merits. It must be assumed that he had considered
all the pleas or grounds raised by the applicant's
counsel before hire and that the same and not found
favour with him. It may be pointed out, with great respect that the notion that each contention raised
before the Court in a hail application must be dealt
with separately or repelled by recording elaborate
reasoning is totally misconceived. We are of the view
that in the present, case the learned Judge who dealt
with the second bail application had in fact
embarked on a review of the order of the learned
Judge in fact, embarked had earlier dismissed the
first bail application."
Used in Judgment of
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
| Crl. Misc.-Post-arrest Bail-Under Section 497 CR.P.C 972-B-20
|
0 Comments