1. ' The petitioner had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. 2389/B-1976, which was dismissed by this Court on 6- 7-1976, vide the detailed order which runs as follows.
2. "Abdul Haq lodged F. I. R. Of this case on 3-4-1976, at 5-20 p.m. At Police Station, Nawan Kot, and Lahore. The occurrence had taken place on the said date at 2/.00 p.m. Abdul Haq promptly lodged F. I. R. Of this case. He disclosed in the F. I. R. That Murtaza alias La who was a person of bad character used to enter his clinic and stare at the ladies and he stopped him from entering his clinic ; that Loloo the day of occurrence at 3-00 p.m., Murtaza co-accused entered his clinic, while some ladies were present there ; that he (the complainant) rebuked Murtaza co-accused for entering his clinic ; that when he came out of clinic, Murtaza co-accused started quarrelling with him ; that Abdul Shahid deceased reached in the meantime and he also rebuked Murtaza and Murtaza used abusive language ; that Abdul Shahid deceased returned in the same coin that Ghulam Muhammad petitioner a brother of Murtaza cc-accused who was present in his shop nearby came to the spot and held Abdul Shahid deceased and thereafter Murtaza co-accused took out the scissor from his Dhab and inflicted blow with it on the chest of the deceased who fell down on receipt of the injury ; that the occurrence was also witnessed by Zahidullah, Sardar and Muhammad Sabir ; that the petitioner and co-accused Murtaza fled away from the spot.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was sudden quarrel and a sudden affair and thus it was covered under exception 4 of section 300, P. P. C. ; that it was an individual act of Murtaza co-accused and provision of section 34, P. P. C. We're not attracted in the case of present petitioner ; that three injuries of Murtaza co-accused had not been explained by the complainant in the F. I. R. And injuries were intentionally suppressed ; that if the petitioner had been present at the spot, he too would have sustained some injuries.
4. ' The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F. I. IL, which was lodged with promptitude. The petitioner was present at his shop nearby. On hearing the quarrel, he reached the spot and caught hold of the deceased while his brother Murtaza co-accused inflicted blow to the deceased in the chest with scissor. The petitioner took active part in the occurrence and facilitated the commission of murder. Prima facie provision of section 34, P. P. C. Are attracted in this case. It will be seen after evidence as to whether or not Murtaza co-accused was caused injuries at the spot. In view of the part played by the petitioner, there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is Prima facie guilty of offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. His case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. It is not a fit case for grant of bail. The bail petition is dismissed." this is second petition. Bail has been urged on the same grounds. Second bail petition is competent on fresh or additional grounds which I find none in the instant petition. The previous order may be read as a part of this order. Since the petitioner had taken active part in the occurrence and facilitated the commission of murder, provisions of section 34, P. P. C. Are attracted in his case.
5. There are reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P. C. The petition is dismissed.