' This is a petition seeking transfer of a trial pending in the Court of Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chiniot to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. An attempt had earlier been made to get the same relief through Criminal Miscellaneous No,273/T of 1991 which had been filed by Mushtaq accused on the ground that he had seen Mst.
Rajan complainant coming out of the house of the said learned Additional Sessions Judge alongwith another woman. On a report called from the said learned Presiding Officer, the allegation had been denied and the said Musthaq accused had not been able to offer any support to the allegations levelled by him. This petition had, therefore, been dismissed by me on 21-9-1992.
3. Within one month of the dismissal of the said application, the present petition has been filed essentially on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer in question had cancelled the bail allowed to Musthaq and Sattar accused through an order, dated 15-9-1991 which order had been set aside by this Court on 6-10-1991 through Criminal Miscellaneous No,3333/B of 1991 and further that the said bail cancelling order demonstrated the prejudice which the learned Presiding Officer entertained against the accused persons.
4. Mushtaq who was the petitioner in the earlier transfer application, is not a petitioner this time and this petition has been filed by five of his co-accused persons. It is not denied that the present petitioners had been arrayed as respondents in the earlier transfer application and had been served. No mention had been made during the course of the proceedings in that transfer application of such a bail cancellation order which ground was available to the petitioner in the earlier petition who was in fact one of the two accused persons whose bail had been cancelled.
5. It would also be noticed that this Court had interfered with the bail cancelling order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a purely legal plane and had not made any observations regarding the conduct of the said learned Additional Sessions Judge in passing the said order. The said bail had been cancelled primarily on the ground that the accused persons had allegedly misused the concession of bail by beating up one of the P.Ws. Much emphasis had been laid by the learned counsel on the fact that while cancelling the said bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had observed that the C accused persons whose bail had been recalled were at liberty to move for bail afresh after two months in case they demonstrated their good conduct. The observation was in fact for the benefit of the said accused persons and in any case, could not be termed as an evidence of the learned Presiding Officer's prejudice against the said accused persons. Needless to say that passing of a wrong order has never been a ground for transfer of cases from one Court to another.
6. In view of what has been noticed above, this petition is dismissed in limine.