1. ' Five persons were nominated as accused in F.I.R. No,Appg265/DCl/95, dated 30-5-1995, including the present two applicants, registered under sections 2(s), 16, 178, 32, 156(1), (8), (89) (14) (77) of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. ' Three different Special Criminal Bail Applications were filed on behalf of the accused persons out of which Special Criminal Bail No,56 of 1995 filed on behalf of Hafiz Gul Kapoor and Muhammad Raza was dismissed on 7-8-1995 while the remaining two applications were adjourned twice or thrice and then the smile were withdrawn on 23-8-1995. Hence dismissed.
3. ' Mrs. Ismat Mehdi, learned Advocate for applicants Ghulam Abbas and Qasim Paracha, has now moved this second bail application after withdrawal of first application on 23-8-1995 being No,60 of 1995. Interestingly enough, both applications contain grounds (a) to (o) exactly similar in verbatim except with addition of the following sentences besides few more lines: "Bail Application Special Criminal Bail No,60 of 1995 was preferred before this Honorable Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with the permission to file fresh after two weeks when final challah is submitted by the Investigating Agency."
4. ' It leads me to go through my order, dated 23-8-1995 which runs as under:-- "The learned counsel withdraws this application. He would be at liberty to file application after final challah is submitted which may be submitted within 2 to 3 weeks."
2. Undoubtedly English is not our mother tongue but I think that wording of my order, dated 23-8- 1995 does not import the same sense as was drawn by the learned Advocate to file the present bail application if final charge-sheet has not been submitted by the Investigating Officer.
5. ' It was also stated in the present bail application that:-- "It was undertaken by the agency that final charge-sheet will be submitted within a period of two to three weeks. That after lapse of about more than four weeks charge-sheet has not been submitted by the Director of Intelligence, hence this bail application amongst others on this ground."
6. I have no doubt in my mind that the order, dated 23-8-1995 does not give any such impression.
7. Therefore, it could not be treated a fresh ground to move the present application. On account of this reason alone, entertaining the present application means to modify the previous order without any convincing ground. Such act of the Court in my view, would be the worst precedent. This proposition is so simple that even the learned Advocate for the applicants cannot be believed to be unaware of the same.
8. ' In- such circumstances, move of the learned Advocate in filing the present application, which is merely a reproduction of the previous application in verbatim, has done nothing except to shock the feelings of this Court. I need not. To add anything more in this order except that moving application with any such background can never be appreciated in any manner, on any ground and under any impression, expectation or circumstances, whatsoever they may be particularly at the cost of the Courts' integrity, respect and honor.
9. ' Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, the learned D.A.-G. Has appeared in the previous bail application and, therefore, he was fully aware about the facts and legal aspects of this case. He suggested that the matter be adjourned to some other date. However, I do not see any need for the same. Hence the bail application is dismissed. May I expect that such application would not be repeated in future?