1. ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- This revision application under sections 435 and 436, Cr.P.C. Has been filed by the applicant against the order passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Malir Karachi, dated 19-3-2008, on the application filed by the applicant, stating therein that the surety documents which were already deposited in the Case No,40/2000 may be accepted and continued in the present case also.
2. ' The facts leading rise to the present revision application in brief are that the applicant Muhammad Naeem has been involved in Crime No,321/1999 of P.S. Quaidabad, under sections 302 and 395, P.P.C, wherein he was granted bail by the learned trial Court on 19-3-2008 in the sum of Rs,1,00,000. After grant of the bail, the accused tiled application stating therein that the accused Muhammad Naeem is real brother of accused Muhammad Ismail, who is facing his, trial in the cases pending before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Malir Karachi in the F.I.R. Nos.321/99 and 322/99 of P.S. Quaidabad under sections 302 and 395, P.P.C. Both these case are pending for adjudication before the learned trial Court, in which the surety papers were deposited much earlier to the grant of bail to the present accused which were accepted by the learned lower Court in Sessions Case No,40/2000 on behalf of other accused. The accused prayed that the said documents may be kept as surety in the present case also which request has been refused by the learned lower Court, hence the present revision application.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant could not arrange another surety papers and the surety papers which have been deposited in Case No,40/2000 may be kept as surety in the present case and the learned lower Court was not justified in refusing the prayer, as the value of the property presently is more than Rs,20,00,000.
5. ' The learned counsel for the State opposed the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. ' I have considered the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available before me.
7. It is admitted position that the surety papers, which the applicant intend to keep as surety in the present case, has already been accepted by the learned trial Court in Case No,40 of 2000, as such the charge has already been created over the said property by pledging the said document before the competent Court and further charge could not be created over the property which has already been pledged by a competent Court unless the property has been redeemed by the Court, as such, further pledge of the same property is not permissible under the law.
8. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the property bears the value more than Rs,20,00,000 but no evidence has been produced either before the learned trial or before this Court, even otherwise the property which has already been pledged could not be further pledged after expiry of years together in some other case The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently placed reliance on case of Mst. Afshan Bibi v. State reported in 1998 SCM R 6, to contend that the High Court cannot impose condition on the bail granted to the accused. Case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in my humble opinion is distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case, as in that case High Court had imposed a condition at the time of grant of bail to the accused that her father could not act as her surety, which is not the position involved in this case, as the applicant is seeking the acceptance of surety papers which have already been accepted by the learned trial Court before 6/7 years back in some other case, as such, the principle enunciated in the case of Ms. Afshan Bibi, supra in my humble opinion, are not attracted to the circumstances of the present case.
9. ' Since the document which the applicant sought to produce as surety have already been accepted by the learned trial Court in some other case and charge has already been created on the said property, as such, they said property cannot be again pledged before the learned trial Court. The order passed by the learned trial Court, in my humble opinion, do not suffer from any illegality.
10. ' For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision application, which is hereby dismissed.