2006 PLP 2073 (YLR)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

Petitioner filed this application for post-arrest bail. The petitioner stands implicated in F.I.R. No.188 of 2004 dated 13-5-2004. The said F.I.R. was registered under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar, Pattoki, District Kasur.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the instant F.I.R. was registered on statement of Mst. Sardaran Bibi. According to the complainant, on the night of 12/13 May, 2004 the complainant and other members of the family were attacked by accused Nasrullah armed with .12 bore, accused Rustam Ali armed with .30 bore pistol; accused Rustam Ali raised Lalkara, followed by a fire by accused Nasrullah which hit complainant's mother Inayat Bibi on her right leg who, later on, succumbed to the injuries. Earlier criminal Misc. No.3870-B of 2005 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by me on 21-6-2005.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this second bail application on the ground that certain facts were not submitted before this Court correctly and the Court was also not assisted appropriately. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.; he was named subsequently in a supplementary statement. He submits that role attributed to the petitioner in the supplementary statement is firing in the air. According to him different sets of accused are mentioned in the F.I.R. and the supplementary statement. He further submits that several investigations have been conducted out of which only two I.Os. declared the petitioner's presence at the scene of occurrence. He submits that no empty of pistol was recovered. He submits that petitioner has already served 1-1/2 years in the prison yet trial has not been concluded. 3-A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state submits that grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner were available on 21-6-2005, at the time of arguments in the first bail application. He submits that no fresh ground is available to the petitioner. He submits that recovery of weapon of offence has been effected.

4. It is a common knowledge that if a ground was available at the time of arguments in the first bail application but it was not taken or argued, it cannot be construed or argued as a fresh ground at the time of arguments in the second or subsequent bail application. Therefore, if any argument was not offered or missed out by the learned counsel arguing first bail application, it cannot be advanced or submitted while arguing the present bail application. The recovery of weapon was effected from the petitioner; this fact prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of offence. The offence alleged against petitioner also falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, this second bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-228/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.