' Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.--Through this petition Ghulam Qammber Shah petitioner-complainant has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J. Of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3456- B of 2014 whereby Respondent No, 1 had been admitted to post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 31 registered at Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffargarh on 26.01.2013 in respect of offences under Sections 324, 148 and 149, PPC.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
3. It has been noticed by us that Respondent No, 1 namely Mukhtiar Hussain had initially applied for his post-arrest bail before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan through Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3456-B of 2013 which petition had been dismissed by the said Court vide order dated 24.09.2013 which reads as follows: "This petition is not being pressed, if a direction is given to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the trial.
2. This petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings of trial by the end of this Calendar year under intimation to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)."
' Subsequently Respondent No, 1 again approached the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan for the same relief in the same case through Criminal Miscellaneous No, 110-B of 2014 which was also dismissed by the said Court on 04.02.2014 through the following order: "After arguing the petition for about 15 minutes, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition.
2. Dismissed as withdrawn."
' Respondent No, 1 again approached the same Court for the same relief in the same case through Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3456-B of 2014 which was allowed by the above mentioned Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan through the order impugned before this Court through the present petition. We have noticed that while admitting Respondent No, 1 to post- arrest bail the learned Judge-in-Chamber had observed in the said order that a private complaint had already been filed by the complainant party against Respondent No, 1 regarding the selfsarr incident and, thus, further detention of Respondent No, 1 in the Challan case had become "illegal".
The learned Judge-in-Chamber had gone on to observe that the earlier two petitions filed by Respondent No, 1 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan seeking the same relief of post-arrest bail in the same case had not been decided on the merits of the case and, thus, a fresh application filed by the said respondent for the same relief could legitimately be entertained and decided on merits by the High Court. We have found both the said reasons recorded by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court for admitting Respondent No, 1 to post-arrest bail to be unsustainable. For declaring continued custody of the respondent in jail in connection with the Challan case as "illegal" the learned Judge-in-Chamber had referred to no provision of law and we have also failed to understand as to how and on what legal basis such custody of Respondent No, 1 in the Challan case could be declared as "illegal". The learned Judge-in Chamber had also gone wrong in holding that the respondent's third application for post-arrest bail in the same case before the same Court was maintainable because the said observation of the learned Judge-in.
Chamber ran completely contrary to the judgment posed by this Court in the case of Nazir Ahmed and another v. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 241) which judgment had subsequently been endorsed by a 5-Member Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State and another (Criminal Appeal No, 327-L of 2013 decided on 12.06.2014). We have been informed that the private complaint instituted by the complainant regarding the same incident had been filed on 05.06.2013, i.e, much prior to dismissal of both the earlier applications for bail filed by Respondent No, 1 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan and, thus, mere pendency of the said private complaint could not be treated as a fresh ground for entertaining the third application for bail filed by Respondent No,
1. The learned Judge-in-Chamber had also fallen in error in observing that the earlier application for bail submitted by Respondent No, 1 had not been dismissed on the merits of the case because the law declared by this Court in the above mentioned judgments clearly holds that dismissal of an application for bail as having been withdrawn after arguing the case on the merits amounts to dismissal of the application on the merits of the case and a subsequent application for bail can only be filed and entertained if the same discloses any fresh ground for such relief, i.e, a ground which was not available till the dismissal of the earlier application for bail.
4. On the merits of the case we have noticed that Respondent No, 1 was attributed a specific fire- arm injury on the neck of Zahid Hussain PW who has so far stood by his allegation against the respondent in that respect and he is prima facie supported by the medical evidence. In these circumstances it could not be said that the case against Respondent No, 1 called for further inquiry into his guilt for the purposes of releasing him on post-arrest bail.
5. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan on 18.07.2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3456-B of 2014 is set aside, the to Respondent No, 1 through the impugned order is cancelled and Respondent No, 1 is directed to be taken into custody so as to be lodged in a jail pending his trial.
6. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Kazim Reza Shamsi and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through the Registrar of the said Court for their lordships' information with an expectation that the learned Judge shall be careful in the relevant regard in future.