MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.--- The bail application of the petitioner bearing No.168 of 2019 was declined by this Court vide judgment/order dated 10.07.2019. The gist of accusation contained in the FIR No. 09/2013 of Police Station Gupis has already been mentioned in the above referred judgment. However for the purpose of convenience, Para No.2 of the above judgment is reproduced herein as under:- " In the said FIR it has been alleged that co-accused Mst. Hafiza Banu daughter of Mir Alam son of Sher Salam resident of Hamardass Gupis has gone to DJ High School Guois to appear in her matriculation examination on 28-05-2013. But she did not return from the said school. The complainant and his family searched for her in numerous places including the houses of their relatives. But she could not be traced out. Mst. Hafiza Banu as per FIR has been married one year prior to the occurrence to a soldier in Pakistan Army. The complainant alleged that his daughter has disappeared mysteriously. On this report the police registered the FIR in hand and as a result of ensuing investigation it came to light that the petitioner namely Ghazi Akber had extra marital illicit relations with the missing daughter of the complainant and he had abducted her when she had come to the said school on 25-05-2013."
2. This petition has been filed now on fresh grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused is absolutely innocent and has, falsely been implicated in this case due to mala fide intensions of the police and the trial Court has examined five PWs out of eleven PWs, and remaining six PWs are yet to be examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that none of the PWs examined before the trial Court has directly charged the present petitioner for commission of alleged offence, hence the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that section 198, Cr.P.C. clearly prohibits the local police for registration of FIR rendering the detention of the accused illegal and against the norms of the criminal justice system. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the prosecution has failed to conclude the trial within the statutory period of two years entitling the petitioner to be released on bail on statutory grounds also.
3. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G. vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the first marriage of Mst. Hafiza Bano with Amjad is not disputed and the petitioner/accused conducted second marriage with Mst.
Hafiza Bano in existence of her first marriage. This act of the petitioner/ accused is against the society and norms of Islam, the punishment of this heinous offence clearly falls in prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
He further submits that the petitioner has remained absconder for the period of over three years therefore, he is not entitled to be granted the facility of bail.
4. I have given a patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
5. The principle of filing a bail application on fresh grounds had been enumerated in PLD 1986 SC 173.The relevant citation of PLD 1986 SC 173 is reproduced herein as under:-- "(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497/498---Second or subsequent bail application to same court when lies.
The second or the subsequent bail application to the same court shall lie only on a fresh ground, namely a ground which did not exist at the time when the first application was made. If a ground was available to the accused at the time when the first bail application was filed and was not taken or was not pressed, it cannot be considered as a fresh and made the basis of any subsequent bail application. The mere fact that the judge who had rejected the first bail application with the observation that as far as the remaining petitioners are concerned no case had been made out for their release on bail, does not mean that the application had not been disposed of on merits. It must be assumed that he had considered all the please or grounds raised by the applicant's counsel before him and that the same had not found favour with him. The notion that each contention raised before the court in a bail application must be dealt with separately or repelled by recording elaborate reasoning, is totally misconceived. [p.177] 1 (Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss.497/498---Bail---Subsequent bail application---Second or subsequent bail application by same accused in same case heard or dealt with by a judge other than the one who had heard previous bail application, held, .would tantamount to embark on a review of order of judge who had earlier dealt or decided first bail application- --Practice disapproved by Supreme Court. [p. 1781K
6. All the grounds raised in the instant petition were mentioned in the previous bail application considered and turned down by this Court. No fresh grounds have been raised, which may influence the mind of this Court to consider the same in favour of the petitioner. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months positively and if the trial is not concluded within the above mentioned period, the petitioner will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application before the learned trial Court.
7. The instant petition is meritless and declined accordingly. File.