784/2024 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD TAUQEER S/O NAZIM HUSSAIN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-OCT-24
It is by now well settled that an accused can maintain a subsequent bail application, at the post-arrest stage, only on the strength of fresh ground, accrued after dismissal of his first plea. In the case reported by The State through Advocate General N.W.F.P. vs. Zubair Ahmed and others (PLD 1986 SC 173) the Supreme Court has held that second or the subsequent bail application to the same Court shall lie only on a fresh ground, which did not exist at the time when the first bail application was made, however in the present case learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out fresh grounds which were not available to the applicant at the time of filing of his first bail application. He nevertheless emphasized that directions given by this Court while disposing of the bail application of the applicant have not been complied with, as such, the applicant is entitled to bail on this ground alone. I am unable to subscribe to such submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. Non-compliance with the directions issued to the trial Court to examine witnesses within some specified time cannot be fatal in terms of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Nisar Ahmed vs. The State and others (PLD 2016 SC 11). However, in the present case, the applicant has shown multiple fresh grounds for consideration of his request for grant of the bail bail application. The case against the applicant prima facie is based on two versions due to the complainant's negation of the story put forward by the police and the affidavit of no objection beside the PW Abdul Ghaffar has narrated a different story including the statement of PC Warid Ali and SIP Muzzafar Ali. The accused's previous bail was denied, but new evidence now warrants reconsideration of his bail plea. Therefore, under such circumstances, this court has left with no option but to release the applicant on post-arrest bail in the subject crime the trial court is still in chaos and the reasons assigned are not sufficient to keep the applicant behind the bar for an indefinite period for the simple reason that the Supreme Court has ruled that delays in trials violate the constitutional rights of the accused to liberty, fair trial, and dignity.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.