' M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- This is second pre-arrest bail application moved by Ch. Nabi Bakhsh, Saeed Ahmad Opal and Muhammad Amin petitioners in case F.I.R No,120 of 2008 dated 9-2-2008 registered with Police Station Green Town, Lahore under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, P.P.C. At the instance of Ch. Nazir Ahmad Chadhar complainant.
2. As per allegation petitioners in connivance with each other got prepared a bogus and fraudulent agreement dated 15-9-1994 just to deprive the complainant from his inherited property.
3. After the rejection of pre-arrest bail from the Court of Session on 11-10-2008 present petitioners approached this Court for anticipatory bail by moving an application (Criminal Miscellaneous:No ,9702/B of 2008). Ad-interim pre-arrest bail was granted vide order dated 15-10- 2008 and thereafter, case fixed on 2/3 days of hearing and ultimately, the same was not pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner on 19-11-2008 stating therein that an observation be made that bail after arrest would be decided by the learned trial Court on its own merits without being influenced by the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge refusing bail earlier to the petitioner as well as order of this Court. The operative part (part-2) of the order passed by this Court is as under:-- "It is observed that the Lower Court seized of the matter of post arrest bail of the petitioner, shall decide the same without being influenced by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, refusing bail as well as order of this Court."
4. Petitioners instead of surrendering before the police moved second pre-arrest bail application in the Court of Session on 27-11-2008 and the same was ultimately dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 13-12-2008.
5. After the rejection of bail from the Court of Session petitioners have filed present application seeking pre-arrest bail and in the application, it has not been disclosed that earlier bail application of the petitioners was dismissed being not pressed by this Court on 19-11-2008 and at the end learned counsel gave the following certificate:-- "This is first bail application against the order dated 13-12-2008."
6. When confronted with the situation about the dismissal of earlier bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware about the dismissal of earlier bail application of the petitioner and he was not counsel in the said bail petition. When he was asked why he gave a false certificate he stated that certificate given by him is correct because he has rightly stated in the certificate that this is first bail application against the order dated 13-12-2008. It was duty of the petitioner's counsel to disclose in the fresh bail application that earlier bail application filed by the accused or co-accused had been dismissed by this Court. Counsel's lack of knowledge about filing and dismissal of earlier bail petition, amounts to lack of diligence in performance of his professional duties. So much so, the certificate given at the end of bail application, it ought to have been that this is first or second bail application on behalf of Petitioner in a case/subject matter/F. I. R.
7. Earlier a learned Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as Abdul Ghafoor v. The State PLD 1975 Lah.754 has given suggestion and steps to avoid concealment of filing and dismissal of earlier bail application. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:--- "Both the counsel agreed that in case of dismissal of earlier petition, it is necessary for the accused to mention in the subsequent 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 hands.
Where a petitioner does not approach the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to the concession of 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 a 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. Some times 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 Muhammad Khan v.
Muhammad Aslam and 3 others 1971 SCM R 789 that when one Judge of High Court refused bail, the rule of 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 their client, opponents, Courts, and themselves. Lawyers are the "Custodians of Civilization; that which there can be no higher aim and no nobler duty". These words have been borrtwed from the speech delivered by Mr. Justice Maugham, in Canada in or about the year, 1967. Everyone taking part in the administration of justice is engaged on 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 importance. It is the duty of the lawyers to ascertain facts before putting up a case in a Court of law. The Code 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 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 reply on him and consequently it is the duty of the counsel to draw the attention of the Coqrt to any ruling, which is contrary to his contention. It has been laid down in Faiz Ulla.
Khan v. Pir Mukamal Shah PLD 1961 SC 34 that Advocate's duty as Officer of Court 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. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners I find that despite dismissal of earlier application for pre-arrest bail, petitioners have not surrendered so far and in view of their conduct they are not entitled to any discretionary relief and second bail before arrest application is not competent. The reason urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the report of Finger Print Bureau in favour of the petitioners there was fresh ground to move an application for pre-arrest bail is misconceived. The said report of Finger Print Bureau is dated 15-11-2008 and the same was available even at the time when on 19-11-2008 previous bail petition of the petitioners was dismissed being not pressed by this Court. Moreover, a retired Finger Print Bureau at the asking of the petitioners prepared the said report privately. Dismissal of earlier bail application is mentioned in the order dated 13-12-2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but despite that it was not disclosed in the present application and technically wrong certificate was B given by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the end of bail application.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.