P L D 1985 Lahore 134 (PLP)

Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others P L D 1984 S C 341 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497 - Bail - Practice and procedure-Earlier bail petition decided on merits-Subsequent bail petition moved . by same petitioner on different grounds-Such petition, held, could be dealt with by another Judge-Such a case not covered by Khan v. Sajawal and others P L D 1984 S C 341 Link 2 Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others P L D 1984 S C 341 ref. Shah Ahmed Khan Baloch for Petitioner. . ORDER This bail matter is before me because Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq vide his order dated 28-10-1984 had directed, when the same petition was previously moved, that since Criminal Miscellaneous 2164/B-83 still earlier petition of the same petitioner was disposed of by Mr. Justice Ijaz Nisar, then keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others (PLD1984SC34), the subsequent petition may be placid before me for appropriate orders. The Supreme Court judgment to the effect that the bail petition should be placed before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the earlier petition only relates to the circumstance where the earlier petition made before one Judge was withdrawn and then a fresh petition was moved thereafter so that the same be dealt with by another Judge. It is in these specific circumstances that the Supreme Court has directed that bail petition should be placed before the same Judge who had dealt with the earlier petition, as it had disapproved the practice or procedure adopted in such cases. But where an earlier bail petition bad been decided on merits) and thereafter subsequent bail petition is moved by the same petitioner,, there is no reason why it should not be dealt with by another Judge if the previous Judge is not available at a Bench or the Principal Seat. In the present case it is submitted by learned counsel that the earlier bail petition, i.e., Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2164/8-83 was disposed of on merits by Mr. Justice Ijaz Nisar vide his order dated 12-9-1983 but the present bail petition of the same petitioner is being moved on a different ground, i.e., technical ground, which can be entertained and disposed of by another Judge as this case is not being covered by the Supreme Court's ruling. I agree with learned counsel. Let this matter be placed before Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq to day. M. Z. M. Order accordingly. Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others P L D 1984 S C 341 ref. Shah Ahmed Khan Baloch for Petitioner. . ORDER This bail matter is before me because Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq vide his order dated 28-10-1984 had directed, when the same petition was previously moved, that since Criminal Miscellaneous 2164/B-83 still earlier petition of the same petitioner was disposed of by Mr. Justice Ijaz Nisar, then keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others (PLD1984SC34), the subsequent petition may be placid before me for appropriate orders. The Supreme Court judgment to the effect that the bail petition should be placed before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the earlier petition only relates to the circumstance where the earlier petition made before one Judge was withdrawn and then a fresh petition was moved thereafter so that the same be dealt with by another Judge. It is in these specific circumstances that the Supreme Court has directed that bail petition should be placed before the same Judge who had dealt with the earlier petition, as it had disapproved the practice or procedure adopted in such cases. But where an earlier bail petition bad been decided on merits) and thereafter subsequent bail petition is moved by the same petitioner,, there is no reason why it should not be dealt with by another Judge if the previous Judge is not available at a Bench or the Principal Seat. In the present case it is submitted by learned counsel that the earlier bail petition, i.e., Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2164/8-83 was disposed of on merits by Mr. Justice Ijaz Nisar vide his order dated 12-9-1983 but the present bail petition of the same petitioner is being moved on a different ground, i.e., technical ground, which can be entertained and disposed of by another Judge as this case is not being covered by the Supreme Court's ruling. I agree with learned counsel. Let this matter be placed before Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq to day. M. Z. M. Order accordingly. Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others P L D 1984 S C 341 ref. Shah Ahmed Khan Baloch for Petitioner. . This bail matter is before me because Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq vide his order dated 28-10-1984 had directed, when the same petition was previously moved, that since Criminal Miscellaneous 2164/B-83 still earlier petition of the same petitioner was disposed of by Mr. Justice Ijaz Nisar, then keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others (PLD1984SC34), the subsequent petition may be placid before me for appropriate orders. The Supreme Court judgment to the effect that the bail petition should be placed before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the earlier petition only relates to the circumstance where the earlier petition made before one Judge was withdrawn and then a fresh petition was moved thereafter so that the same be dealt with by another Judge. It is in these specific circumstances that the Supreme Court has directed that bail petition should be placed before the same Judge who had dealt with the earlier petition, as it had disapproved the practice or procedure adopted in such cases. But where an earlier bail petition bad been decided on merits) and thereafter subsequent bail petition is moved by the same petitioner,, there is no reason why it should not be dealt with by another Judge if the previous Judge is not available at a Bench or the Principal Seat. In the present case it is submitted by learned counsel that the earlier bail petition, i.e., Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2164/8-83 was disposed of on merits by Mr. Justice Ijaz Nisar vide his order dated 12-9-1983 but the present bail petition of the same petitioner is being moved on a different ground, i.e., technical ground, which can be entertained and disposed of by another Judge as this case is not being covered by the Supreme Court's ruling. I agree with learned counsel. Let this matter be placed before Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafiq to day. M. Z. M. Order accordingly.