KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioner is in custody, on account of Reference No,6 (8)/124/NAB/2000. Prays for bail on the ground that he was a sick and infirm person and further that he already stood tried and acquitted of the offence which had been made the basis of the present' reference on account of which he was being detained which detention could not be sustained in law.
2. With respect to the medical ground pressed for bail, suffice it to say that on 8-11-2001 we directed medical and physical examination of the petitioner by a Board comprising the M.S. Of P.I.M.S., Islamabad and other experts which Board has since submitted its report and according to which report dated 21-11-2001, the petitioner did not suffer from the kind of infirmity or sickness which could justify the petitioner's release on bail. The Medical Board has reported that the petitioner felt pain and discomfort in both his knees on account of secondary osteoarthritic changes. The petitioner also felt pain and discomfort in his neck and the arm which was because of compression of nerve by the first rib. The Board was of the opinion that the petitioner could benefit from a course of physiotherapy to his neck and knees.
3. As has been noticed above, the petitioner is not suffering from the kind of disease which could not at all be treated in jail or which could lead to any serious and terminal consequence on account of petitioner's confinement in jail.
4. We have gone through the charge-sheet of the earlier Reference No,18 of 2000 and have compared it, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, with the offensive facts alleged through the present Reference No,6(8)/124/NAB/2000 and it has transpired that a number of properties found in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The new Reference were the properties which were never the subject-matter of the earlier trial. In this view of the matter it could not be said, at least prima facie, that to the extent of the abovementioned newly discovered properties the present Reference/trial was hit by the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution and the provisions of section 403 of the Cr.P.C. Needless to mention here that offences are relatable to facts and if an offence emanates from different set of facts then the case is not the one of double jeopardy.
5. Having thus examined the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner we find that no case for grant of bail to the petitioner was made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.