ASJAD JAVAID GHURAL, J.---Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. petitioners Maqbool Ahmad and Muhammad Khalid have sought premium of bail before arrest in case FIR No.34/20 dated 07.01.2020, in respect of an offence under section 506, P.P.C. read with section 25D, Telegraph Act, 1885, registered at Police Station, Millat Town, District Faisalabad.
2. On 16.06.2020, before opening up the arguments, learned Law Officer apprised the Court that pre-arrest bail of the petitioners had been confirmed by the court of first instance during the penden cy of this bail petition, therefore, a report was requisitioned from the concerned Court as to how second bail petition during pendency of this petition could be entertained. Show-cause notices were also issued to the petitioners as well as their learned counsel.
3. In compliance of the above said order Ms. Samina Hayat, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad has submitted a report, according to which the petitioners while filing second bail petition before the lower court had not disclosed the factum of pendency of instant bail petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Rashid Siraj, Advocate, in reply to show cause notice has submitted that first bail petition of the petitioners was dismissed on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereupon, he applied for bail before arrest in this Court; that during the pendency of this petition, a compromise was effected between the parties, as such he filed second bail petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on the fresh ground of compromise; that he is a young lawyer and could not disclose the factum of pendency of this petition before the said Court. He tendered unconditional apology with a commitment that such mistake shall not be repeated in future.
5. The petitioners in their reply have subm itted that they did not know the legal position that the factum of pendency of this bail petition was required to be disclosed in the second bail petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and left themselves at the mercy of the Court.
6. Concealment of fact relating pendency of instant bail petition before the court of first instance is a professional misconduct. The purpose of requiring certificate qua pendency of any matter is that before C adjudicating upon the matter the Court should be well aware of the entire facts so that a conflicting order may not be passed. Here in the instant case, a painful thing is that Mr. Rashid Siraj Advocate during pendency of instant bail petition filed second bail petition before the court of first instance and that too with a wrong certificate that no matter was pending.
However , the said Advocate is a young lawyer , who confessed his mistake, tendered unconditional apology and thrown himself at the mercy of Court, therefore, keeping in view his future career , a judicial restraint is being show and the show-cause notice issued to him D is hereby discharged with a stern warning to remain careful in future.
As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are laymen and know nothing about the legal obligations and there appears no mistake on their part, therefore, show cause notices to the said petitioners are also discharged.
7. Since, the pre-arrest bail of the petition ers has already been confirmed by the Court of first instance on the basis of compromise, therefore, instant petition stands disposed of.