' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---On 7-6-2010, after Esha prayer in the area of Mail Mahait within the bounds of Police Station Saddar, Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh, Ghulam Shabbir was slain in the commission of dacoity, for which, his brother, Muhammad Akram, as being an eye-witness got the case registered vide FIR No.223 dated 7-6-2010 under section 396, P.P.C. At Police Station mentioned supra. Later on offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was also put together.
2. In specificity, the role against the petitioner is that he caused a fire shot with his rifle hitting on the front side of chest (below the base of neck) of Ghulam Shabbir, deceased, whereas co-accused Ayaz alias Ayazi followed the petitioner by making another fire shot, which hit the deceased on the front side of neck and the deceased was attended dead.
3. Before to proceed further with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, certificate having been put down on the bail petition has been considered apropos to be made the part of this order, therefore, the same is reproduced as follows:-- "CERTIFICATE As per knowledge, given by my client, the petitioner earlier filed Crl. Misc. No.3497-B/2012 on statutory ground which was declined by this Hon'ble Court on 25-9-2012, then petitioner filed second post-arrest bail through Crim. Misc. No.4566-B/2012, which was withdrawn on 22-10- 2012. The petitioner again filed Crl. Misc. No. 5298-B/2012, which was declined on merits by this Hon'ble Court on 22-2-2013, thereafter, the petitioner filedCrl. Misc. No. 5704-B/2013 before this Hon'ble Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28-11-2013 from the Court of his Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Sajjad was granted bail on statutory ground through Crl. Misc. No. 3316-B/2013 on 30-9-2013 by this Hon'ble Court, whereas, another co- accused of the petitioner namely Rafique Ahmad also filed his post arrest bail application bearing Crl. Misc. No. 62-B/2013 before this Hon'ble Court, which was allowed on 22-2-2013 by His Lordship Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahamd, Bail Petition Cr. Misc. No. 3352-B/13 before Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Ejaz Ahmad-J. Advocate"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the date of arrest i.e. 22-7-2010, he is incessantly, behind the bars and in the near future final conclusion of the case is unexpected and its temporization by any stretch of imagination cannot be attributed to the petitioner and it amounts to travesty of justice to keep a person in the prison indefinitely, therefore, the petitioner deserves his release by the relief sought for.
5. Adversarial in exquisite manner, submissions have been opposed and relied upon the earlier order passed by this Court in Crim. Misc. No. 3497-B of 2012 on 25-9-2012 that bail petition of the petitioner has already been dismissed on the same ground and instant petition has no fresh ground, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. It is noteworthy to mention infra relevant paragraphs of earlier order passed by this Court on 25- 9-2012 in Crim. Misc. No. 3497-B of 2012:-- "(3) The grant of well is prayed for on merits as ell as on statutory grounds mentioned in section 497, Cr.P.C.
(4) It is averred in this petition that statement of not a single prosecution witness has so far been recorded and no delay in the trial can be attributed to the petitioner.
(5) The grant of bail is opposed by the learned A.P.G. And the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. It is contended that 15 criminal cases stand registered against the petitioner at various police stations. The petitioner is a habitual and desperate criminal, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail.
(6) I have gone through the contents of this application, heard the learned APG, counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record.
(7) The petitioner is involved in 15 criminal cases. The offence is heinous one. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not committed the alleged offence. The petitioner in the circumstances does not deserve the concession of bail on statutory ground and on merit. This petition is dismissed."
8. The Court has been guided by the latest illuminative judgment handed down in the case of Nazir Ahmed and another v. The State and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan after thrashing the law on the subject of bail has formulated following principles:-- "(i) At the bottom of every application for bail it is obligatory to attach a certificate regarding non fulfilling of any such application before the same Court previously and, in case of a repeated or successive application, a certificate disclosing filing of any such application previously by the same accused person, any other accused person, the State or the complainant party before the same Court in the same criminal case, or its cross case and such certificate must also disclose the number of the previous application, the date of its decision and the name of the Judge dealing with and deciding the same. No subsequent/bail application is to be entertained unless the same is accompanied by copies of the earlier bail applications and copies of the orders passed thereon.
(ii) All repeated or successive applications for bail must be fixed for hearing before and heard and decided by the same Judge (s) who has dealt with and decided any earlier application for bail unless the Judge or one or some of the Judges .Dealing with and deciding the earlier application (s) is/are not available at the relevant station of posting/ Principal Seat/ Bench.
(iii) Dismissal of an application for bail after attending to the merits of the case amounts to rejection of all the grounds available or in existence till the time of such dismissal whether such grounds were actually taken or urged or not and whether such grounds were expressly dealt within the order of dismissal or not.
(iv) In case of dismissal of an earlier application for bail on the merits of the case a subsequent application for the same relief can be filed and entertained only if it is based upon a fresh ground, i.e., a ground which was not available or in existence at the time of decision of the earlier application.
(v) Withdrawal simpliciter of an earlier application for bail before addressing or hearing of any argument on the merits of the case does not preclude filing of a subsequent application for the same relief before the same Court and its decision by such Court on the merits of the case. In all cases of withdrawal of such an application the Court must faithfully record in its order as to whether withdrawal of the application had been requested and allowed after addressing end hearing some or all these arguments on the merits of the case or withdrawal of the application had been requested and allowed before addressing and hearing of any arguments on the merits of the case.
(vi) In case of withdrawal of an earlier application for bail after addressing and hearing of some or all the arguments on the merits of the case no subsequent application for the same relief can be filed before or entertained by the same court unless such subsequent application is based upon a fresh ground, i.e., a ground which was not available or in existence at the time of deposition of earlier application".
9. As already bail petition of the petitioner for the selfsame relief has been declined by this Court and now fresh ground lacks, therefore, instant petition being meritless is hereby dismissed.