1997 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.186/409/419/420/468/471/34-- Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)

Bail

All grounds taken in bail application by accused had already been considered by Court in an earlier bail application of accused which was heard and dismissed by detailed order of Court and accused had failed to furnish any fresh ground for grant of bail-- Merely because of admission of a criminal miscellaneous application of accused seeking quashment of proceedings, it could not be said that accused had succeeded in showing that their case required further enquiry

Filing of affidavit by certain witnesses exonerating accused of charge against them, was also not a new ground because witnesses often were won-over and they filed affidavits to oblige accused

Bail was declined in circumstances. M. Ilyas Khan for Applicants. Zaheer Qureshi for the State. Applicants Gulzar Muhammad and Muhammad Yaqoob, who are involved in F.I.R. No.2/93 of Police Station F.I.A., Karachi under sections 186, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, have approached this Court for bail after a similar application moved on their behalf is dismissed by the learned Special Judge (Central-1), Karachi by order, dated 12-6-1993. An earlier bail application (Criminal Bail Application No.240 of 1993) moved by applicant Gulzar Muhammad was heard and decided by me and the same was rejected on 11-4-1993. A similar bail application of applicant Muhammad Yaqoob (Criminal Bail Application No.128 of 1993) was also heard and decided by me and was dismissed on 1-3-1993. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Zaheer Qureshi for the State. It was pointed out to the applicant's learned Advocate that all grounds taken in this bail application were earlier considered by this Court and bail was refused and that he should point out if there were any fresh grounds on which bail was sought. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan then contended that a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.911 of 1993 is filed before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings of the case, which has been admitted to regular hearing to determine the point whether the accused could be tried for the alleged offence or they are to be tried under the Telegraph Act, 1885, which makes provision of trial of accused involved for offences as are alleged against them in the F.I.R. It is then argued that even on the point of delay, although such ground is not available under 3rd proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of Cr.P.C. applicants, who are in jail since over 8 months, would be entitled to bail. Learned Advocate then discussed the merits of the case also and pointed out that in the judicial confession given by accused Yaqoob the name of applicant Gulzar does not transpire as it is only accused Ansar Mehdi, who is involved by accused Yaqoob in the confession. Learned Advocate also referred to certain precedents and also the provisions of sections 20, 27 and 28 of the Telegraph Act. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Advocate is that because of special provision for trial of accused on similar charge exists in the Telegraph Act, which is a special law, the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, which is a general law, would not be attracted. According to the learned Advocate, because of the admission of the quashment application by this Court the case would require further enquiry and applicants would be entitled to bail. The last contention of the learned Advocate is that 3 witnesses Muhammad Liaquat, Mushtaq Ahmed and Fazal Amin have sworn affidavits, wherein they have exonerated applicants of the alleged charge and that this is a new circumstance, which warrants release of applicants on bail. Bail is opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for the State, who has argued that no fresh grounds are made out and by a detailed order bail applications of these applicants were already dismissed by this Court. I have considered the above contentions of the learned Advocates. Merely because of admission of a criminal miscellaneous application, seeking quashment of the proceedings, it cannot be said that applicants have succeeded in showing that their case requires further enquiry. The filing of affidavits by certain witnesses exonerating applicants of the charge is also not a new ground because often witnesses and some of them are won over and to oblige the accused they file affidavits. In some cases it amounts to tempering with the evidence. Bail applications of these applicants were dismissed by detailed orders and in my view there is no fresh ground for grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./G-391/K Bail application dismissed.