1. ' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Shafiquddin son of Jameeluddin is facing trial before the learned VIIth Additional Sessions, Judge, Karachi (East) under sections 395, 397, 398, 353 and 412, P.P.C., which has arisen out of F.I.R. No,109 of 1998 of Police Station, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R., lodged by complainant Tahir Ismail on 27-4-1998, are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "I reside at the above address along with my family and I have my private business. Today on 27- 4-1998 in the night I and my younger brother Ather and my uncle Ghaffar along with other ladies were sitting in Drawing Room and were watching T.V. At about 8-25 from room and saw that two young boys duly armed with T.T. Pistols were standing and the gate of house was open, they ordered me to keep quiet, I became afraid. In the meanwhile their three other companions who were hiding behind the gate also come inside they all covered me and brought me inside the Drawing Room and my uncle, my brother and other ladies of house were gathered in one place and one culprit Muhammad Waseem remained there as guard while other four culprits started searching the house they took out golden ornaments, cash, T.V. VCR, Deck and after putting the same in complainant's Car No,W-0052 Suzuki Khyber, make having Green Colour and one culprit whose name was disclosed as Siddiq by arrested accused Waseem, who went away in car, the other four culprits threatened my house-mates and they took me from my house to the house of one Hanif, they got opened the gate of Hanif's house by me through intercom and entered inside the house of Hanif on gunpoint, then they gathered me, Hanif with the family members of Hanif in one room and the said Waseem remained in room as guard while other culprits after taking the keys started searching the rooms, while they were searching the rooms by chance Rafiq brother of Hanif ringing telephone, during conversion Hanif informed the said Rafiq regarding presence of dacoits as such Rafiq phoned 15, police reached at the spot and when all four culprits came to know that police has arrived they all came out from bungalow and on seeing police party they started firing on police party, police also retaliated by firing as a result one dacoit Mithoo was arrested in injured condition by police and from possession of Mithoo one T.T. Pistol of 30 bore with four bullets and a loaded magazine No,4536 was recovered and also arrested accused Muhammad Waseem and from his possession one T.T. Pistol of .30 bore with four bullets loaded magazine No,0 72397 unlicensed was recovered which he was holding in his hand, the two companions Shafiq and Pervaiz made their escape good after throwing the lootted property in the house of Hanif. My complaint is against culprits who entered on show of arms in my house and looted property from the house of Hanif and who made firing upon police party. Accused Mithoo who became injured due to firing by police in their defence, died subsequently. I report for this incident and I request for legal action."
3. ' After usual investigation the case was sent up and in charge sheet applicant/accused was shown as an absconder. Subsequently, he was arrested in another case and he was sent up to stand trial in the present case.
4. ' The applicant/accused applied for bail before the Trial Court but it was refused to him by impugned order, dated 16-3-1999.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as learned State counsel.
6. ' After the conclusion of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/accused on the factual aspect of the matter, the learned State counsel pointed out that the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has suppressed the fact that previously Cr.B.A. No,59 of 1999 was filed by the applicant/accused in the same case and on merits it was dismissed on 9-3-1999 by this Court and in the present application only additional ground of sickness, which was not previously urged, is available to the applicant/accused for consideration. He opposed the bail plea of applicant/accused on the ground of sickness. I sent for the file of this Court in Cr.B.A. No,59 of 1999, which supports the contention of the learned counsel for the State.
7. ' The perusal of present application for bail shows that the applicant/accused has suppressed the fact of previous bail application i,e,, Cr.B.A. No,59 of 1999. This fact was not even mentioned in the memo. Of application. This practice is highly reprehensible and is deprecated. Moreover, it tantamounts to professional misconduct. The Advocates are law officers of the Court, their duty is not only to plead the cause of their client but to assist the Court for the advancement of the cause of justice. The non- disclosure of this fact is against the canons and norms of legal profession.
8. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has reiterated the points which were urged in Cr.B.A. No,59 of 1999, therefore, it will be needless to give again fresh findings on the points already decided.
9. ' Now I will advert to the ground of sickness urged by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and opposed by the learned State counsel.
10. ' The learned counsel put great stress on the photo-copy of medical report issued by the Medical Officer, (Central) Prison, Karachi, which has been filed in support of the plea of sickness.
11. ' The perusal of report sent by medical officer to. Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi, shows that the previous report of IVP shows that the applicant/accused is suffering from Hydronephrosin of right kidney and statics in pelvic reicox near uretexo-vasical junction which requires operation.
12. It is not deducible from the report that when and where IVP of applicant/accused was made and who performed it. It is not mentioned that the applicant/accused cannot be treated in jail hospital or in any other Government hospital and his remaining in jail would be detrimental to his life.
13. ' The impugned order shows that the. Trial Court while rejecting the bail application issued following direction. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--- "I have heard the learned Defence as well as State counsel. Accused is involved in heinous offence such as dacoity. Doctor has examined him in which he has advised for kidney operation of the applicant/accused. The accused can get treatment in any Government hospital through the Jail Superintendent, hence his bail application is rejected. Let the intimation be sent to the Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi, with direction that accused should be get admitted in any Government hospital in which he wants to get his operation."
14. ' Thus, the Trial Court has passed appropriate and proper order and it does not suffer from any infirmity, even the choice/option of selecting any Government hospital for the purpose of treatment has been given to the applicant/accused, therefore, application for grant of bail merits no consideration and it is accordingly dismissed.