'TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,421 dated 16-6-2006 for offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 34, 148 and 149, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif.
2. It has been noticed that the earlier bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner and other co- accused was heard and decided by this Court on 23rd of June, 2008. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the said petition at the very outset did not press the petition to the extent of the petitioner and to his extent the petition was dismissed, however, the other petitioners/co-accused were allowed bail by this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the learned counsel who had filed the earlier petition on behalf of the petitioner and others, which was decided by this Court through the aforesaid order, should not have made the statement regarding non-pressing of the petition to the extent of the petitioner as he was entitled to the same on merits. He has further argued that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and that there is no direct evidence of involvement of the petitioner in the crime.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that after dismissal of the earlier bail application of the petitioner as being not pressed, no fresh grounds have been urged by the learned counsel before this Court in support of the instant petition that the petitioner is the main accused, who in four successive investigations was found to be implicated in the case by the police; that weapon of offence i.e, 12 bore gun was recovered from his possession in the course of investigation and that challan in the case has been submitted in the Court to the extent of the petitioner therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed on 23-6-2008. The grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture as the same were available to him when his first bail application was dismissed as being not pressed. The case of, The State v. Zubair and another (PLD 1996 SC 173) places a complete embargo against such a contention. Even otherwise, from the record available in the Court, it is evident that the petitioner is the main accused. He has been charged with an offence which attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The weapon of offence i.e, .12 bore gun has also been recovered at his instance.
In four successive investigations, the petitioner has been found to be fully implicated in the crime and consequently challan in the case has been submitted and the trial is in progress.
7. For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition which stands dismissed.