1. ORDER SHAFI MUHAMMADI, J.-Five persons were nominated as accused in FIR No.Appg-265/DCI/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.; Three different Sp. Cr Bail Applications were filed on behalf of the accused persons out of which Sp. Cr.Bail No.56/95 filed on behalf of Hafiz Gul Kapoor and Muhammad Raza was dismissed ^on 07.08.1995 while the remaining two applications were' adjourned twice or thrice and that the same were withdrawn on 23.8.1995. Hence dismissed..
2. Mrs. Ismat Mehdi. Learned advocate for applicants Ghulam Abbas and Qasim Paracha, has now moved this second bail application after withdrawal if the first application on 23.8.1995' being No.60/95. Interestingly enough, both applications contain ground (a) to (oj exactly similar in verbatim except with addition f of the following sentences besides few more lines.
3. "Bail application Spl.Cr.Bail 60/95 was preferred before this Honourable Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with the permission to file fresh after two weeks when final challan is submitted by the Investigating Agency."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. She would be at liberty to file application after final challan 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 sens as was drawn by the learned advocate to file the present bail application if final charge-sheet has not been submitted by the I.O.
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 levied 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 Court's integrity, respect and honour.
9. Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, the learned D.A.G, had 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 applications would not be repeated in future?