1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---Appellant Muhammad Behram is the principal accused in a murder case pending before the Zilaee Adalat Bagh. The incident took place on 13th of June, 1992.
2. Nine other persons Muhammad Hafeez, Lakhmir, Javed, Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Razzaq, Mst.
3. Aisha Begum, Mst. Hayat Begum, Mst. Farida Begum and Mst. Shaheen, are co-accused in the case.
4. According to the First Information Report, first informant Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Irfan, Attiq-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Nazir were sowing maize crop in the land of the first informant.
5. The accused persons appeared on the spot. Appellant Muhammad Behram and Javed were armed with daggers while other accused persons carried stones in their hands. Javed and Tariq are said to have caught hold of Muhammad Amir while appellant Muhammad Behram inflicted injury on the abdomen of Muhammad Amir with dagger as a result of which Muhammad Amir died while on way to the hospital. Accused persons Lakhmir and Muhammad Hafeez caught hold of Imran and Javed inflicted injuries on the chest of Imran with dagger. Appellant Muhammad Behram also inflicted injuries on the left hand of the first informant when he intervened. Mst. Aisha Begum caused injury on the first informant by pelting stones on his head. Mst. Hayat Begum, Mst.
6. Farida Begum, Mst. Shaheen and Razzaq also threw stones on the members of the complainant party. It is also stated in the F.I.R. That out of the accused persons appellant Muhammad Behram and Mst. Aisha Begum were also injured by the stones hurled by other accused persons. Seven accused persons were granted bail but it was not granted to Muhammad Behram, Javed and Tariq. The matter of grant of bail to Javed and Tariq came to this Court in "Javed and another v.
7. State" [Criminal Appeal No, 16 of 1992] which was decided on 11th of January 1993. The appeal was accepted with the result that Javed and Tariq were ordered to be released on bail. Subsequently appellant Muhammad Behram also moved this Court for grant of bail by filing Criminal Appeal No,10 of 1993 to challenge the rejection of his bail by the Shariat Court vide order passed on 28th of November, 1993. On 9th of March, 1994 the appeal filed by Muhammad Behram was rejected on the ground that prima facie reasonable grounds existed for believing that Muhammad Behram was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life.
8. ' When the bail matter of Muhammad Behram came to this Court three prosecution witnesses had already been examined by the trial Court. When two more witnesses were examined the appellant filed fresh application for bail which was rejected by the trial Court. Thereupon he filed appeal before the Shariat Court. A learned Judge in the Shariat Court, while rejecting the appeal, has recorded the observation that Muhammad Behram's case was fit for bail, but the learned Judge in the Shariat Court felt that he was unable to allow the concession of bail to appellant due to the observations of this Court. The order was announced on 4th of February, 1994.
9. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, in support of his appeal and the learned Advocate-General, Ch. Muhammad Yusuf, who vehemently opposed the grant of bail in the case.
10. ' The only contention of Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan in support of the appeal is that in First Information Report it was stated that appellant Muhammad Behram was injured when stones thrown by the other accused persons hit him but this explanation stood falsified by the fact that one of the injuries, namely injury No,5, was caused by a sharp weapon while this injury could not have been caused by a stone. He submitted that two witnesses examined by the trial Court, after the previous judgment of this Court, have not furnished any explanation as to how Muhammad Behram was injured. According to the learned counsel this has furnished a fresh cause for moving a bail application.
11. We do not find any force in this contention. As rightly pointed out by Ch. Muhammad Yusuf, the learned Advocate-General, three witnesses who had been examined when the case came to this Court in the previous round also did not furnish any explanation as to how appellant Muhammad Behram was injured but in spite of that bail was declined to him. His plea for bail was rejected due to existence of reasonable grounds, as already mentioned. Therefore, in our opinion, the mere fact that two more witnesses have been examined and they have also not furnished an explanation as to how the appellant was injured does not furnish any fresh ground. It is well-settled that prayer for bail can only be repeated if a new ground has become available but this situation does not exist in present case.
12. ' We notice that a reading of the order under appeal creates the impression as if the Shariat Court is not fully satisfied with the grounds on which bail granted to the appellant by the Shariat Court was cancelled by this Court. We do not want to discuss this point in detail, but only wish to hope that this impression was not consciously created. However, the following passage needs our special attention: "...As the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the decision of the Supreme Court, the statements of various witnesses have been recorded and in private complaint the process was issued to the complainant and others. The statement of the doctor has been recorded, so there is sufficient material regarding the counter-version. I was already of the view, that this is the fit case for bail, but after the observation of the Supreme Court I am unable to allow the concession of bail to the appellant."
13. ' It may be seen that the learned Judge felt advised to reiterate that he was of the view that it was a fit case for bail. In our opinion this observation was not necessary or warranted. In its previous judgment this Court had decided that the appellant could not be legally released on bail and the view formed by the learned Judge in the Shariat Court in favour of grant of bail to the appellant was vacated. With the judgment of this Court the matter attained finality and could not be re- opened directly or indirectly. In light of this clear legal position, it was not legally open for the learned Judge in the Shariat Court to observe that it was a fit case for bail. In these circumstances we deem it appropriate that those observations in the order under appeal which are different from the final verdict of this Court should not be allowed to remain on record. We, therefore order that the following words from the portion reproduced above shall be expunged from the order under appeal: "I was already of the view, that this is the fit case for bail, but" On merits we find no force in the appeal and order its dismissal.