' SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.---By way of this judgment, I propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Nos.167 of 2011 and 193 of 2011 as both the petitions have arisen out of one and the same F.I.R. No,26 of 2010 dated 23-12-2010 registered under sections 409/ 420/468/477-A, P.P.C.
At Police Station F.I.A, D.I.Khan.
2. It is worth mentioning here that, the bail petitions of both the petitioners Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah and Khizar Hayat have been considered and dismissed by this Court on merits vide judgment dated 21-2-2011. Now they have moved bail petitions on fresh grounds that co-accused Pasham Khan has been released on bail, therefore, in view of the principle of consistency, they are also entitled to the concession of bail. Moreover, the petitioner Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah sought the concession of bail on an additional ground of his ailment.
3. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record."
4. Since the bail petitions of both the petitioners have already been dismissed by this Court by considering all pros and cons of the matter, therefore, the merits of the case are not required to be considered again. It amounts to review the order, earlier passed by this court, however, such practice having no sanction of law.
5. The ground of illness agitated by petitioner Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah is also of not worth consideration because the documents appended with the petition are insufficient and do not disclose even the nature of disease or its gravity, what to speak of his treatment in the Jail Hospital.
Moreover, no certificate from doctor of the Jail Hospital is available to show that the disease of the petitioner cannot be treated which requires treatment by a Specialist doctor outside the Jail. No doubt, section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Provides release of an accused person on bail who is under the age of sixteen years or any woman, or any sick or infirm person, accused of non-bailable offence, there should be very strong reasons to believe that the nature of disease demands for special treatment but the proper care is not available in Jail which endangers the life of an accused person. In the similar circumstances, the honourable Supreme Court in the case titled Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another (1997 SCM R 1275) held that:- "We have no doubt in our mind that every ailment does not attract invocation of discretion contained in proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. There must exist strong reasons to believe that despite advanced medical technology and availability of medicines, treatment and care of petitioner was not possible regarding being had to nature of illness. Thus, adverting to facts of present case, it may be seen, that petitioner is suffering from common disease which can be conveniently treated in jail hospital and does not appear to the life threatening. Trial Court misconstruing legal position, had seriously erred in allowing bail to petitioner ,whereas Lahore High Court by assigning sound reasons corrected the wrong and rightly directed cancellation of bail granted in favour of petitioner."
6. On behalf of the petitioners accused, it was agitated that the petitioner accused deserved the concession of bail in view of the principle of consistency, as their co-accused Pasham Khan has been granted bail by this Court, on the ground that the complainant i,e, Manager of the Bank had recorded his statement with the consent of his High-Ups having no objection of his release on bail who deposited a sum of Rs,40,00,000. Moreover, the learned State counsel had also consented to the grant of bail to the said accused in the instant case, the bail petitions have been strongly opposed by learned counsel for the complainant and the State counsel as well. Thus, the ground on which Pasham Khan was released on bail is not available to the present petitioners. Moreover, the role attributed to the present petitioners and Pasham Khan is quite distinguishable, as the petitioners were running parallel business in the Bank whereas Pasham Khan is having account in the said Bank and is not the employee of the Bank. It is the duty of the Bank Manager and other subordinate staff to manage the business of Bank.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the bail petitions being devoid of force are hereby dismissed.