P L D 1975 Lahore 754 (PLP)

GULBAZ KHAN, J.‑By this order, we propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 862‑B/74, filed on behalf of Abdul Ghafoor alias ,Ghafoori. on 19th March 1974, and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1170‑B/74, filed by Mohammad Siddique, on 16th April 1974. Both the petitioners are .accused of the same case.

2. Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1963‑B/73, on 19th May 1973. It was dismissed by this Court (Mr. Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah) in limine, on 21st May 1973. Copy of the order passed by this Court along with the copy of the bail petition were sent to the District Magistrate, Lahore, on 25th June 1973. The learned .counsel for the petitioner had urged the following grounds for bail:‑ (i) That most of the eye‑witnesses did not see the occurrence and ; claimed to have seen the accused including the petitioner running away from the spot; (ii) That the person who claimed to have seen the occurrence, namely, Mohammad Ramzan, who is a real brother of the deceased, in a statement under section 161, Cr. P. C., attributed only a dang blow said to have been inflicted by the petitioner on the deceased, the result of which, according to the doctor was only a simple injury and description of injury did not show that the same was caused by a dang blow; (iii) That according to the statement made by Ramaan, the complainant party had the grievance against the petitioner. These grounds were duly considered. It was observed in the order dated 21st May 1973, that the petitioner had been attributed a specific role of having given a dang blow to the deceased whereafter he fell down and the subsequent blows to the deceased by other accused could not be held to be unconnected with the action of the petitioner; that it would be premature to say that provisions of section 34, P. P. C. would not be applicable in this case; that the fact that some witnesses claimed to have seen a part of the occurrence only or having deposed of the running of the accused from the spot, did not either make their evidence irrelevant or weaken the testimony of Mohammad Ramzan P. W.; that the relationship of Mohammad Ramzan with the deceased could not be made the basis of any benefit to the petitioner for the purposes of bail; that no finding could be given from the statement of Mohammad Ramzan P. W. recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C., in favour of the accused that the complainant party was aggressor as this question could' be determined after recording the evidence. Question of delay was also considered in the said order and it was observed that delay was duly noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3558‑B/73, on 4th September 1973. Same grounds were urged in this petition. This petition was dismissed by this Court" (Mr. Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah) in limine, on 17th September 1973. Copy of the order as well as the bail petition were sent to the District Magistrate, Lahore, on 5th October 1973, which were received in Court on 8th October 1973. The order and the copy of the bail petition are part of the judicial file. While dismissing the second bail petition, it was observed that after the dismissal of previous petition in May, 1973, there had been some progress in the case despite floods. The extended delay was also con sidered, but found not sufficient for allowing bail to the petitioner. The Committing Magistrate was directed to complete the commitment proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Both the above‑mentioned petitions had been moved on behalf of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori, by Mr. War Pasha Chaudhary, Advocate, who represented him before the Committing Magistrate. Mohammad Sharif co‑accused moved Criminal Miscellaneous. No. 3783‑B/73, through his counsel Mr. R. A. Awan, Advocate, on 20th September 1973. Bail had been urged on the grounds of delay; injuries on. non‑vital parts of the body and of unlikelihood of absconsion of the petitioner or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Committing Magistrate (Kb. Maqsood Pervaiz) was directed to report about the cause of delay. He was further asked to report as to how much further period would be taken in the completion of the commitment proceedings. It was reported by the Committing Magistrate that the case was transferred to his Court, on 18th September 1973, and by that time, eight witnesses out of seventeen, had been examined and two of the eye‑witnesses had yet to be cross‑examined. It was further reported by the Committing Magistrate that the delay occurred due to the transfer of file; non‑production of witnesses on a number of dates and despatch of file to the higher Courts in connection with bail matter. While concluding the report, the Committing Magistrate reported that every effort shall be made to complete the enquiry as early as possible. The petitioner was allowed bail by this Court (Mr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah) on 25th October 1973, on the sole ground of delay. It was left to the Committing Magistrate to cancel the bail in the event of the commit ment of they petitioner to the Court of Session. It is to be noted that in the bail petition filed by Mohammad Sharif, it was not mentioned that the bail petition of the co‑accused Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori was dismissed twice and ground of delay considered by this Court, in spite of the fact that orders passed by this Court on the bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori along with the bail petitions had been forwarded to the District Magistrate and the bail order passed by this Court, on 17th September 1973 and bail petition were part of the judicial file. Even during the arguments, on 25th October 1973, Mr. R. A. Awan, Advocate, did not point out that the bail petition of the co‑accused Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori had been dismissed in limine twice by this Court. If the fact of dismissal of two bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori had been mentioned in bail petition of Mohammad Sharif, his bail petition would have been ordinarily placed before ‑the same Bench, or if it had been pointed out during the arguments, it would shave been transferred to the same Bench.

3. Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4311‑B/73, on 30th October 1973, through his counsel Mr. Zafar Pasha Chaudhary. The petitioner urged bail on the ground, amongst others, that ,co accused Mohammad Sharif had been allowed bail by this Court ~(MT. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah) on 25th October 1973. It was also disclosed .in the petition that two bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori bad earlier been dismissed by this Court (Mr. Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah). The third accused Mohammad Siddique, a brother of Mohammad Sharif co‑accused, moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4338‑B/73, on Ist Novem ber 1973. Both these petitions came up before this Court (Mr. Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah), for hearing on 27th November 1973. Mr. Zafar 'Pasha and Mr. R. A. Awan, Advocates, made separate statements that according to instructions of their clients, they wanted to withdraw the petitions so that those could be moved before the Court of Session. Both the petitions were, accordingly, disposed of as having been withdrawn.

4. Khadim Hussain, who had lodged the F. I. R. of this case, moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4625‑B/73, on 26th November 1973, for the cancellation of bail of Mohammad Sharif. The petition came up for hearing ‑before this Court (Mr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah) on 3rd December 1973. Notice was issued to the respondent for 25th January 1974. During hearing .of the petition, on 29th January 1974, it was urged by the learned counsel for Khadim Hussain petitioner informant that bail had been declined to the co‑accused and the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail as his case was not distinguishable from the co‑accused. An adjournment was sought to produce the copies of the orders passed by this Court on the bail petitions of the co‑accused. The petition was adjourned to 25th February 1974. The Committing Magistrate was directed to expedite the proceedings. The learned counsel for Khadim Hussain petitioner did not file the copies of the orders passed by this Court on the bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor a has Ghafoori co‑accused. Petition for cancellation of bail was ordinarily to be disposed of by the Bench, which allowed bail. Petition for the cancellation of bail was dismissed on 30th April 1974, on the ground that eye‑witnesses had been examined and only formal witnesses, medical witnesses and the Investigating Officer remained to be examined and it was hardly possible for Mohammad Sharif respondent to influence those witnesses. It was also noted down that the occurrence had taken place two ,years ago and the case was still pending before the Committing Court. Before parting with the order, this Court gave direction to the Committing Magistrate to complete the commitment proceedings as expeditiously as possible. It was again repeated that in case of commitment, it would be open to the Committing Magistrate to cancel the bail of Mohammad Sharif respondent.

5. Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 862‑B/74, on 19th March 1974, while the petition of Khadim Hussaia for the cancellation of bail of Mohammad Sharif co‑accused was still pending. This petition came up before the Court (Mr. Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah) on 20th March 1974. Bail was urged on the ground that Mohammad Sharif main accused was allowed bail by this Court (Mr. Justice Nasim Hassan Shah), on the ground of delay. The bail petition was kept pending till the decision of cancellation of bail of Mohammed Sbarif (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4625‑B/73). Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 303‑M/74, intimating that the petition for cancellation of bail had been disposed of. Request was made for the listing of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 862‑B/74. The learned Chief Justice passed an order for the bearing of the bail petition of Abdul Gbafoor alias Ghafoori. Mohammad Siddique moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1170‑B/74, on 16‑4‑1974. Both the petitions filed by Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori and Mohammad Siddique came up for hearing before this Court (Mr. Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah) on 18‑6‑1974. The matter was referred to the learned Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench as the following important questions had arisen in the bail petitions:‑ (i) Whether it was necessary for the learned counsel who filed the petition for Mohammad Sharif (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3783‑B/73) to mention that earlier petition for bail on ground of delay filed by the other accused had been dismissed by this Court and if he initially did not know about this fact, whether it was not necessary for him or his client to make enquiries in that behalf and give a note thereof orb the petition; (ii) What is the effect of the failure of Mohammad Sharif accused/or his, counsel to give necessary information with regard to the disposal of" the earlier petition on:‑ (a) Bail granted to Mohammad Sharif; (b) Approach by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in subsequent petition whether he is to follow the earlier decision by the High Court given in the case of same accused‑petitioner or the latter decision by a. different Bench of the High Court; ‑ but in a petition filed by a different accused; (c) The present petition. (iii) When one learned Judge of this Court gives decision on the question; of bail in the same case without knowledge of the other and both the decisions prima facie appear to be conflicting, which one is to be followed in subsequent bail petition(s) in the same case; (iv) What is the effect of the ruling of the Supreme Court in matter of successive bail petition filed in High Court requiring the same to be,. heard by the same Bench, if available, which dismissed the earlier one: on (a) Petition by the other accused in the same case; (b) Petition for cancellation of bail in the same case; (c) Petition for bail/cancellation in the cross/connected case, if any. It was under these circumstances that the learned Chief Justice referred the matter to the D. B. consisting of Mr. Justice M. A. Zullah and myself.

6. Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori moved Criminal Miscellaneous. No. 779‑M/74, on 25th September 1974, for the hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 862‑B/74. It was ordered by the learned Chief Justice ors 26th September 1974, that the bail petition be disposed of in the month of October, 1974, if complete.

7. Both the petitions for bail were argued at length by Mr. Zafar Pashar Chaudhary and Mr. R. A. Awan, Advocates. Both the counsel agreed that in case of dismissal of earlier petition, it is necessary for the accused to mention in the subsequent bail petition that his earlier petition for bail had, been dismissed. They further agreed that in case of dismissal of bail petition of co‑accused, it is equally necessary for the accused to mention this fact, if it comes to his knowledge. It is regretfully put on record that there is a growing tendency to conceal the fact of dismissal of earlier bail petitions. We need not quote instances. There are so many. The litigants do not approach the Courts with clean bands. Where a petitioner does not approach the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to the concession o bail and the discretion cannot be exercised in his favour. It is not difficult for a counsel to find out the truth as to whether an accused or co‑accused had made any bail petition previously or not. Where a counsel makes genuine effort to find out if the accused had previously moved bail petition and the litigant conceals it intentionally, the counsel is not to be blamed. Sometimes an accused succeeds in obtaining bail order from a different Bench by concealment of dismissal of his earlier bail petition or bail petition moved by the co‑accused. In order to avoid such situation, it has been held '` by Supreme Court in Mohammed Khan v. Mohammad Aslam and others 1971 S C M R 789 that when one Judge of High Court refused bail, the rule o propriety and harmony required that subsequent applications made in the same case be referred to the same Judge who had earlier refused bail. This can be achieved only when the Judge is informed about the other petition We need not remind the Lawyers their status and duties towards the clients, opponents, Courts, and themselves. Lawyers are the "Custodians o Civilisation; than which there can be no higher aim and no nobler duty". These words have been borrowed from the speech delivered by Mr. Justice Maugham, in Canada in or about the year 1967. Every one taking part in the administration of justice is engaged in a task of importance to the welfare of the community. Lawyer is trained to observe and weigh facts, and to learn their values. Maintenance of intellectual honesty is a matter of first impor tance. It is the duty of the lawyers to ascertain facts before‑putting up case in a Court of law. The Code of honour of the Bar is at once its most cherished possession and the most valued safeguard of the public. In the discharge of his office, the Advocate has a duty to his client, a duty to his opponent. a duty to Court and a duty to himself. The whole foundation and structure of the administration of justice depends on mutual confidence of the Bench and the Bar. The life of one at the Bar who may not be trusted by the Court, must indeed be an unhappy one. Counsel may not know the law or he may be completely mistaken as to an interpretation of law. These are the things which can happen to anyone. But the Court is entitled to rely on him and consequently it is the duty of the counsel to draw the attention of the Court to any ruling which is contrary to his contention. It has been laid down in Faiz Ullah Khan v. Pir Makamal Shah P L D 1961 S C 34 the Advocates' duty as Officer of Court is to do nothing consciously by act or omission which might mislead Court. It is hardly necessary to point out that the duty of the counsel in this regard is in complete accord with the interest of his client and his own interest. A counsel should remember that he is incharge of the case; he has to exercise his own judgment and discretion as to the conduct of the case; no hope of immediate gain should lead him to depart from the traditions of the Bar. Members of the Bar belong to a great profession which has a far‑reaching influence on the welfare of the country. Judges are appointed to administer justice. Without the help of counsel, they cannot succeed. Every member of the Bar is a helper in the administration of justice and he owes a duty not only to his client, but to the Court and that duty is fulfilled by his using of his power to bring before the; Court the relevant facts and decisions to the end that a proper result may be obtained. If the members of the Bar act in the aforesaid manner, they would be fulfilling their duties to their clients, opponents, Courts and themselves.

8. Copies of the orders passed by this Court on the bail petitions of ,Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori dated 21st May 1973, and 17th September 1973, were sent to the District Magistrate, Lahore. Copy of the order dated 17th September 1973, is a part of the judicial file. Mohammad Sharif had moved bail petition after the rejection of the second bail petition of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori. The bail petition of Mohammad Sharif, was accepted on 25th October 1973. It is not understood as to how the learned counsel for Mohammad Sharif did not know the filing and dismissal in limine of two petitions of Abdul Ghafoor, by this Court. But in view of the statement of Mr. R. A. Awan, Advocate, at the Bar, who appeared on behalf of Mohammad Sharif in bail petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3783‑B/73), we have no other option except to deem it as correct. We cannot, however, help observing that to say the least, he was not diligent in the performance of ,,his professional duties. If be had cared to examine the file, he could have gained knowledge about the dismissal of the two bail petitions filed earlier by co‑accused Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori. In order to avoid such like situations, following suggestions are made:‑ (i) That copies of orders passed by this Court on every bail petition, whether for bail before arrest or after arrest, should be forwarded to the Enquiry Magistrate/trial Court and the S. H. O. Police Station concerned; (ii) That the S. H. O. should place a copy of that order on the police file; (iii) That the Enquiry Magistrate/trial Court should maintain a separate file for each police station and place the copies of the bail orders in the file during the investigation of the case, which should be open to inspection by the counsel and after the challan is submitted in Court, the copies of the bail orders should be placed on the judicial file; (iv) That separate registers for each Sub‑Division/Tehsil should be main tained in the High Court for entry of every bail petition with result thereof and it should be open to inspection by the counsel; (v) Counsel should give his own certificate on ever bail petition that the accused or the co‑accused had not moved a bail petition earlier and other relevant information qua cancellation of bail petition in the same and/or cross cases; (vi) The above procedure/mechanism should be applicable mutatis mutandis to bail proceedings before the Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges. If these suggestions are accepted and acted upon, then it would be easy for a counsel to find out whether any party had moved any bail matter earlier in the same/connected case. And he would come to know of it even if his, client was not prepared to divulge the truth. Thus the law laid in above cited ruling (1971 S C M R 789) would be complied with in letter and spirit.

9. The bail petition of Mohammad Sharif was accepted by Mr. Justice Nasim Hassan Shah, on 25th October 1973. Khadim Hussain informant moved petition for the cancellation of his bail, but it was dismissed by the same Bench, on 30th April 1974. It was observed, while disposing of bail petition and connected petition for cancellation of bail that it should be open, to the Committing Magistrate to cancel his bail if he is committed to the Court of Session. The learned A. A.‑G. stated that he was examining the possibility of moving the Supreme Court for the cancellation of bail of Mohammad Sharif co‑accused. The prosecution evidence has been closed and the enquiry is likely to be completed shortly. In these circumstances, we refrain to pass any order in respect of the bail of Mohammad Sharif. It is open to the Committing Magistrate to cancel his bail in case he is committed to the Court of Session.

10. The orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 22nd December 1973, and 16th January 1974, on the bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori and Mohammad Siddique, have been perused. Bail was urged on behalf of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori on the ground that co‑accused Mohammad Sharif had been released on bail by this Court (Mr. Justice Nasim Hassan Shah), vide order dated 25th October 1973, on the point of delay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge mentioned in his, order that the point of delay has been re‑agitated before High Court sub sequent to the passing of order dated 25th October 1973, but later the bail petition was disposed of as withdrawn on 27th November 1973, and earlier a petition on similar ground moved by Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori was dismissed, on 17th September 1973, in limine by High Court, therefore, it was not expedient in law to reconsider the bail on the point of delay. While disposing of the bail petition of Mohammad Siddique, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order dated 16th January 1974, mentioned that since a similar petition had been dismissed previously by him and the petition for cancellation of bail of Mohammad Sharif co‑accused was subjudice before High Court, therefore, it was not proper to release Mohammad Siddique on, bail on the point of delay. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed orders with great care and caution and no, exception can be taken to those orders.

11. The learned counsel for the two petitioners urged that since Mohammad Sharif co‑accused had been allowed bail by this Court on the ground of delay, it would be in the fitness of things and the propriety also demanded that the two petitioners should also be released on bail. The learned A. A.‑G. agreed with the views expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground of propriety. The bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori and Mohammad Siddique are to be decided on their own merits irrespective of the fact that co‑accused Mohammad Sharif had C been released on bail by this Court. Delay per se is not a sufficient ground for allowing bail in a case, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Delay has to be considered along with the merits of the case. Bail cannot be allowed to the accused who intentionally wipes out the whole family including innocent children and women by setting the house on fire merely on the ground that he is in jail for a period of about one year and the case has not been committed to the Court of Session. Desperate and other similar traits/and tendencies cannot be lost sight of while considering ‑the bail petition on the ground of delay. It has also to be seen as to how much the petitioner contributed towards the delay. We are supported in our views by the law laid down in Mohammad Khan v. Ata Ullah and others 1974 S C M R 165, Riasat Ali v. Ghulam Mohammad and another P L D 1968 S C 353, Mohammad Nawaz and 2 others v. State 1968 S C M R

683. Order passed in Maula Bakhsh and 3 others v. The State 1971 S C M R 196 would not be applicable because in the reported case, the accused remained in jail for eight years and not a single witness had been examined. In the instant case, the prosecution evidence has been closed. It was held in Manzoor Khan v. Karim and 4 others 1972 S C M R 207 that High Court was right in granting bail to the undertrial prisoner accused of murder because they could not be kept in jail without trial for inordinate long period without satisfactory explanation or reason. The authority would be applicable to a case where was inordinate delay and there was no satisfactory explanation or reason of delay. Since the prosecution evidence has been concluded in this case, this authority would not be applicable. The facts of case Mohammad Riaz and others v. State 1973 P Cr. L J 120 are quite distinguishable because in the reported case the accused was arrested although there was no suspicion and there was no .eyewitness and not a single witness appeared in about 24 adjournments. In the case in hand, there is ocular evidence. In the present case, the occurrence took place on 23rd July 1972. Incomplete challan was prepared by the ,S. H. O. on 6th August 1972. The learned Magistrate was transferred. For proper orders, it was ordered to be put up on 30th August 1972. Evidence was summoned for 20th September 1972. Copies of interim orders have been placed on record. The prosecution concluded the evidence in about two years and two months. The interim orders have been examined carefully. Four times the file was summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge >to consider the bail petition. Mohammad Anwar and Shaukat P. Ws. were present on 10th April 1973, but their statements were not recorded as the .learned Magistrate was busy in Labour Court cases. Mohammad Anwar, Ramzan and Nazir were present on 18th June 1973, but their statements were snot recorded as the learned Magistrate was on leave. Learned counsel of the accused were not present on 3rd August, 1973, when the statements of Ramzan and Shaukat were recorded. Right of cross‑examination was (reserved. On two dates, the Magistrate was on leave. On one occasion. the Magistrate was on special duty. The file was transferred twice and on one occasion, the Magistrate was transferred. Nearly eight months were con sumed in this way. No serious effort was made by the Magistrates although directions for expeditious disposal had been given by this Court on more than three occasions. This state of affairs is deplorable. It would be worthwhile mentioning that material evidence except the statements of ibid (eye‑witness) and Mohammad Nazir (recovery witness) had been recorded before 25‑10‑1973. Out of remaining nine witnesses, four were public witnesses while five were public servants. Out of those five, three were police officials and two were doctors. Anwar P. W. was given up as having been won over on 2nd October 1973. Liaqat Ali, the other recovery witness, was examined on 6th March 1974. In case the Magistrates had checked the file to find out as to whether the summons had been issued. if so, with what reports received back, the delay would not have occasioned. It has been noticed with concern that in some cases delay is caused due to the non‑appearance of the Investigating Officers. It has to be stopped forthwith. The I.‑G. Police should issue directions to the Investigating officers that they should appear in Courts with promptitude even if transferred from that particular police station. In this case, if the Magistrates had taken a little pain, the case would have been disposed of long ago.

12. Since the delay has to be considered along with the merits of the case, we advert to the facts of the case. Mohammad Siddique petitioner and his brother Mohammad Sharif co‑accused armed with chhuris while Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori armed with dang, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked Talib Hussain deceased. Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori inflicted stick blow to the deceased, who fell down. Muhammad Sharif co‑accused and Mohammad Siddique petitioner inflicted chhuri blows to the deceased after he had fallen on the ground. The deceased was caused five injuries with sharp pointed weapon. Injury No. 6, which was caused with sharp pointed weapon, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohammad Amin, Irshad, Anwar and Shaukat P. Ws. The deceased made dying declaration ;before the above‑mentioned witnesses and Khadim Hussain P. W. stating that :he was injured by Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori with stick and by Siddique and Sharif with chhuris. During the investigation of the case, Mohammad Siddiquie petitioner produced the two blood‑stained chhuris, which were sealed into a parcel. These chhuris were found to be stained with human blood. The eye‑witnesses have supported the prosecution case The witnesses also deposed about the dying declaration of the deceased, wherein the deceased implicated the two petitioners and their co‑accused. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. To determine as to whether the provisions of section 34, P. P. C. ;were attracted or not, is beyond the scope of this Court as it can be determin ed only after the appraisal of the prosecution evidence and that is the function of the trial Court. It is, however, not a fit case in which bail can be allowed to Mohammad Siddique and Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori petitioners on the ground of delay. The witnesses have deposed against the petitioners and there are not reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life Bail cannot be allowed to the petitioners for the reason that their co‑accused has been :released on bail.

13. The questions posed by my learned brother Mr. Justice M. A. Zullah are answered as follows:‑ It was necessary for Mr. R. A. Awan, Advocate, to mention in bail petition filed on behalf of Mohammad Sharif accused that two bail petitions tiled by co‑accused Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori on the ground of delay dead been dismissed by this Court. He could have easily known about the filing of the bail petitions by Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori, if he had inspected the file before making the bail petition. This fact could have been ascertained without much efforts. Counsel should invariably give note at the end that no bail petition was made previously by the petitioner or his co accused. It is open to Committing Magistrate to consider the question of cancellation of bail of Mohammad Sharif at the time of his commitment. At this stage, we do not consider it proper to pass any order in respect of his bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed orders on bail petitions with care and caution. The bail petitions of Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori .and Mohammad Siddique are to be disposed of on their own merits. It has been held in Farid v. Ghulam Hasan and others 1968 S C M R 924 that when one Judge of High Court expressed himself strongly against grant of bail, another Judge of the High Court, in accordance with long established practice and rule of propriety, when moved for grant of bail should transfer such application for disposal by the first Judge to avoid two contradictory orders being passed in the same case by High Court. It has been laid down in Province of East Pakistan v. Dr. Aziz‑ul‑Islam P L D 1963 S C 296 that where one Division Bench differs with earlier Division Bench, it should refer case to larger Bench or while following earlier case, express their doubt and leave matter to be raised in appeal before Supreme Court. Law has been laid down by the Supreme Court and it has to be followed by all the Courts. In view of the above authorities, the petition by the other accused, or petitions for can cellation of bail, or petitions for bail /cancellation of bail in the cross/con nected cases are ordinarily to be disposed of by the same Bench, if available.

15. For reasons recorded above, we are not persuaded to allow bail to Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori on the ground of delay and also on the ground of propriety because justice stands in the way of grant of bail. The net result is that the bail petitions filed by Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori and Mohammad Siddique, are dismissed. M. A. ZULLAH,, J.‑I agree with the conclusion as also the order proposed by my learned brother. K. B. A. Petitions dismissed.