1. BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---Appellant Muhammad Tasleem Khan is one of the accused persons who are facing trial in a murder case. He moved bail application before the District Criminal Court, Bagh but it was rejected on 1st of February, 1994. He then approached the Shariat Court through a revision which was dismissed on 7th of June, 1994. However, the learned Judge in the Shariat Court observed that Muhammad Tasleem Khan may renew his prayer for bail, if so advised, when the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial Court.
2. ' After commencement of the trial the statement of three prosecution witnesses were recorded. In light of the previous judgment of the Shariat Court the appellant moved a fresh basil application before the trial Court but it did not find favor with that Court. A revision petition was lodged before the Shariat Court. A learned Judge in the Shariat Court (Muhammad Riaz Akhtar Chaudhry, J.) has rejected the revision petition. This order is subject-matter of the present revision petition.
3. ' Our attention has been drawn by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan to the fact that the previous bail matter of the appellant was heard by Kh. Muhammad Saeed, J. The learned counsel has cited Karamat Hussain v. Faraqat Hussain PLD 1987 SC (AJK) 27, in which it was held that if one of the learned Judges of the Shariat Court/High Court has decided a bail application a fresh bail application in the same case should be heard by the same Judge. Speaking for the Court Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, C.J. Observed as follows:-- "It, therefore, follows, that where one Judge of the Shariat Court/High Court has expressed himself against grant of bail, another learned Judge of the Shariat Court/High Court in accordance with the long-established practice of superior Courts in Pakistan and rule of propriety, with which we respectfully concur, when moved afresh for bail of an accused or his co-accused in the same case should transfer such bail application for disposal to the same Judge who had already dealt with the matter in order to avoid contradictory order. It was so held in the case of Farid v. Ghulam Hussain 1968 SCMR 924. The latest ruling on the subject is Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others PLD 1984 SC 341 wherein apart from holding that subsequent bail applications in the case should be placed before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the earlier bail application, practice of withdrawing a petition from one Judge and then making a fresh basil application soon thereafter was also disapproved."
4. ' At another place the following observation was recorded:-- "... It is mainly to avoid this that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has emphasized over and again that subsequent bail application must be placed for disposal before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the first bail application and also that the council must disclose the fact of having filed a previous application and to state the result thereof. We fully endorse the view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan."
5. ' In a case reported as The State v. Saber PLD 1986 SC 282 it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the principle under reference is a salutary principle and it was observed that violation of this rule was regrettable. However, it was laid down that where it is absolutely impossible to place the second or subsequent application before the same learned Judge who had dealt with the earlier bail application of the same accused or a same case it could be ordered by the Chief Justice that such a case be fixed for disposal before another Judge of that Court.
6. ' The learned Advocate-General, Ch. Muhammad Yusuf, and the learned counsel for the complainant, Kh. Shahad Ahmad, did not disagree that the salutary rule under reference has been violated in the case. A perusal of the judgment under appeal shows that the learned Judge who authored the judgment under appeal was not unaware of the fact that a previous bail application has been moved by Muhammad Tasleem. In the judgment there is a specific reference to the previous decision of the Shariat Court recorded on 7th of June, 1994 on the bail application moved by the appellant Muhammad Tasleem. We may observe that the learned counsel appearing for both the parties should have requested the learned Judge to refer the bail matter for decision to the learned Judge who had decided the previous bail application.
7. The Shariat Court is bound to follow the dictum of this Court in Karamat Husain's case which escaped the attention of the learned Judge. Since the order under appeal has been passed in violation of the dictum we are constrained to hold that the said order is not sustainable in law.
8. ' We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the order under appeal. It is directed that the Shariat Court will treat the revision petition filed by the appellant as pending and should be disposed of afresh in light of the observations made in this judgment.