2021 Y L R 690
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
MUHAMMAD SULTAN---Applicant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 46 of 2020, decided on 5th May, 2020.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497 ---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c) ---Transportation of
narcotics ---Bail, refusal of ---Second bail application ---Fresh grounds, non- availability of ---
Effect ---Accused was apprehended while transporting 4000 grams of chara s---High Court
had already rejected the bail application of accused on merits ---Instant application was filed
by the accused after 1 month and 20 days of the rejection of his earlier bail application ---No
fresh ground was available to the accused to file t he instant application ---Petition was
dismissed, in circumstances.
State v. Zubair and 4 others PLD 1986 SC 173 rel.
Khalil Ahmed Panezai for Applicant.
Yahya Baloch, A.P.G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th April, 2020.
ORDER
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J .---By this order we intend to dispose of the instant
criminal bail application based on FIR No. 13 of 2020 registered with Police Station Bela,
District Lasbela under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which has directly been repeat ed before this court on behalf of the applicant/accused Muhammad Sultan
after his bail application bearing No. 15 of 2020 was rejected by this court vide order dated 2.3.2020 which was filed by the applicant after his bail plea was declined by the trial co urt
vide order dated 15th February 2020.
2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the instant application and the set of
allegation as stated in the FIR are that on 31.01.2020 SI/SHO Muhammad Jan along with other police officials were busy in checking the vehicles at Link Road Jilani Stop. At 9:30
pm one vehicle bearing registration No. AUZ -078, which was driven by the
applicant/accused Muhammad Sultan which was stopped. The other person sitting on the
front seat disclosed his name as Muhammad Rafiq and the other sitting on rear seat disclosed his name as Muhammad Umer. On search from a plastic bag lying between the front seats 4000 grams of charas was recovered, which was taken into possession through recovery memo in presence of witnesses.
The accused was arrested on the spot and the case under the above section of law was
registered against him.
3. Learned counsel was asked to assist the court about maintainability of the instant
applicant as apparently there is no fresh ground available to the applic ant/accused that too
when his earlier bail application was declined on merit after considering all the grounds taken therein. In response it was mainly contended by learned counsel for the applicant/accused that while passing the earlier order dated 2.3.20 20 rejecting the earlier bail
application this court did not considered some of the grounds raised therein. According to learned counsel each and every ground shown in the bail application has to be considered and dealt with separately.
4. Conversely, the learned APG vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that no fresh ground has been raised in the instant application, therefore, the application is not maintainable. The learned APG was of the view that all the grounds, which w ere raised
in the earlier bail application were dealt with exhaustively by this court and the application was declined on merits.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant/accused, the learned APG as well as gone thr ough the material available on record.
For the sake of convenience the contents of relevant paragraph of the order passed by this court whereby the bail application was rejected is reproduced here under:
"3...... The applicant No.1 being driver of the vehicle cannot be absolved of the liability at this stage of the trial."
6. Perusal of the above order reveals that this court has already rejected the bail
application filed by the applicant on merit. It transpires that the instant application was filed by the applicant/ accused Muhammad Sultan on 22.04.2020 i.e. one month and twenty days
after rejection of his earlier bail application. This court has already rejected the first application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused after having considered the p rosecution
case and overall facts and circumstances of the case and as such in our humble opinion the instant second bail application, from the face of it is, misconceived and cannot be entertained. Admittedly there is no fresh ground available to the appl icant to file the instant
application. In this regard reliance is placed on the case titled as State v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 SC 173) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
8. It might be useful to mention here that the second or the sub sequent 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 bail 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.
In view of above discussion, since no fresh ground has been raised in the instant
applicatio n and as the earlier bail application was declined on merits wherein all the grounds
taken/argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner were considered against the applicant/accused, therefore the instant application being meritless, is dismissed.
The above observations are tentative for the purpose of decision of this application
which should not influence trial.
SA/67/Bal. Bail declined.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.