1. ' This application was filed by the petitioner on 17.6.2002 with the request that petitioner is not in position to surrender before the Court owing to his serious ailment and being hospitalized. The learned Advocate was directed to produce the petitioner who appeared on the same date and was allowed concession of pre-arrest bail vide order dated June 17,2002.
2. ' It is alleged in the application that applicant is a B-19 senior class I gazetted officer of Education Department of AJ&K Govt. And presently serving as Deputy Director Education. It is claimed that applicant hails from a very respectable family of AJ&K. The-applicant also claims . To have been elected as President of Secondary Schools Officers/ Headmaster's Association of AJ&K. The case of the petitioner is that AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau out of malice and personal vendetta of some officials employed in his department maliciously got issued warrant of arrest by respondent No, 1 . The petitioner was apprehended in pursuance of the aforesaid warrant on 16.5.2000 in offences under sections 467/468, 471/420, 419 APC, 5(2) PCA, section 6(5) Public Offices Misconduct Act, 1965 and section 4 of Official Misdemeanour Act, 1948 read with section 4 of AJ&K Ehtesab Act, 1997. It is stated that request for grant of personal remand of the applicant was declined by the Ehtesab Court on May 17,2002. The applicant thereafter, moved an application before the Ehtesab Court for grant of bail in the aforesaid offences which was declined by the said Court on February 22,2002.
3. The petitioner, however, was released by this Court on May 31, 2002. It is alleged that to frustrate the order of the High Court, respondent No,1 issued some more warrants of arrest of the petitioner in the same offences allegedly committed in the years 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. The petitioner moved another bail application before the Ehtesab Court No,1 and the same was accepted by the Ehtesab Court on June 1, 2002.
4. ' It is stated in the application that some more warrants of arrest have been issued to harass the petitioner, therefore, the issuance of warrants is clear-cut malice on the part of the Ehtesab Bureau.
5. The warrants issued by the Ehtesab Bureau on May 15,2000 under the offences referred above pertaining to the years 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001 are also placed along with the application as Annexures "PC" and "PD". In the afforested facts, it has been craved that if the concession of bail is not allowed, the petitioner shall be humiliated and also shall suffer irreparable loss. The petitioner has also requested bail on medical grounds as he is a serious cardiac patient.
6. ' Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the same grounds which have been taken in the application. The learned counsel also placed on record medical certificate showing the health condition of the applicant whereby the applicant has been referred for angiography.
7. ' The learned Advocate prayed for bail keeping in view the health condition of the petitioner, Sardar Ashiq Mehmood Sadozai, the learned. Chief Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the same relief was refused to the petitioner by this Court on June 7,2002. According to the learned Chief Prosecutor, the learned advocate for the petitioner was bound to apprise the Court regarding the previous order of this Court, but a deliberate attempt has been made to deceive the Court by not mentioning the result of the earlier application. The learned Chief Prosecutor submitted that the present application is liable to be dismissed without touching the merits of the case. The learned Advocate has placed on record the order of this Court dated June 7,2002 whereby the application for pre-arrest bail as well as the application for omni bus bail order has been declined to the petitioner.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Without touching the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the present application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner moved an application for grant of omni bus bail before arrest in offences under all criminal laws for the time being inforce in Azad Jammu and Kashmir before this Court on May 4,2002. The application was made over to my learned brother Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Nawaz Khan, J, by the learned Chief Justice. Para 3 of the , aforesaid application is reproduced below for proper perception of the matter:- "3. That it is to be appreciated that the request for grant of personal remand for two weeks made by the Ehtesab Bureau Investigating Agency on 17.5.2002 and upon the declination of the Ehtesab Court No,1 Muzaffarabad is not exceeding the plea of the prosecution, the applicant was sent on judicial remand. The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant has since been rejected by the learned Ehtesab Court on frivolous, flimsy and artificial grounds vide order dated 22.2.2002, which has been assailed by the applicant in appeal before the learned High Court. But to frustrate the legal process of appeal before the learned High Court as well the revered Ehtesab Court ' No,1 the respondent No,1 has issued four more warrants of arrest of the petitioner with regard to commission of the same offences in year 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001.".
9. Another application was moved by the same applicant for pre-arrest bail which was also declined by the Court. The prayer for pre-arrest bail as well as for omni bus bail has been disallowed by my learned brother Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Nawaz Khan, J. By observing as under:- "3. It is worth to be noted here that the accused-petitioner himself has placed four warrants of arrest on record. In one case his bail application was rejected by the trial Court but he was released by this Court on medical grounds. In another case the request for remand to police custody was refused by the trial Court on the ground that he was not shown under arrest. Two other cases are also under investigation and the record prima facie suggest to say that he is linked with alleged offences and these offences are non-bailable. Therefore, when the cases against the petitioner are under investigation, it cannot be said at this stage that he is being victimized maliciously.
4. The pre-arrest bail application is granted only when some mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of prosecution is shown. Here in this case, the conduct of the petitioner is of such a nature which too disentitles him concession like pre-arrest bail. Therefore, he does not deserve this concession."
10. ' Without disclosing the filing of earlier application as well as the result thereof, the second application has been moved in the same offences. It is suffice to observe that the learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed.To perform his legal duty. The Supreme Court of J&K in the case of `Karamat Hussain v. Faraqat Hussain' (PLD 1987 SC AJK 27) took a serious notice and observed as under:--- "Another principle enunciated in some of the rulings is that it is the duty of the counsel to mention in a bail application, filed by him, the fact of having filed an earlier bail application stating the result thereof. We may mention here that failure on the part of the counsel to do so may amount to professional misconduct. Such a method may result in conflicting judgments and disharmony in the Court. We, however, decline to express ourselves on the matter and leave it to be taken up by the Shariat Court."
11. The learned Chief Prosecutor has rightly argued that the order dated June 7,2002 is appealable before the Appeal Court, of AJ&K and a fresh application cannot be entertained. The grant of bail in the subsequent application will amount to review the earlier order of the Court which is not permissible under law. The legal position has finally been set at rest by the Superior Courts that whenever an order of pre-arrest bail is not confirmed by the Court, the applicant in that case is bound to surrender himself to the police. Otherwise, he will be a fugitive from law and a Court of law will straight away decline his subsequent bail application. I am supported by the dictum of the Supreme Court laid down in Irshad Mehmood's case (1996 SCR 25). The learned Apex Court while dealing with the similar situation observed as under:--- " We may observe that although Muhammad Iqbal and Najeeb were arrested after the cancellation of their bail by the Shariat Court their appeal has to be decided in light of the principles of pre-arrest bail. In our view if a person is not granted pre-arrest bail or after having been granted it is cancelled on the ground that it was not a fit case in which pre-arrest bail should have been granted, there are two courses open for such an accused person. He may accept the verdict and may apply to the trial Court for after arrest bail. However, if he does not accept the verdict that he was not entitled to a pre-arrest bail he may file appeal against that judgment.
12. However, before doing so he would have to surrender himself but his arrest will not change the nature of the case. The appellate Court would in such a case apply its mind to the question whether the, judgment refusing pre-arrest bail was correct or not. If it is found that he was entitled to pre-arrest bail can be granted to him."
13. The applicant despite rejection of his bail applications, vide order, of this Court dated June 7,2002, remained free and the concerned agency has provided him opportunity to knock at the door of the Court for the same relief which has been declined to him earlier. I would have considered the application of the applicant in view of the aforesaid conduct of the Investigating Agency, but keeping in. View the previous order of the Court and legal position referred above, I am not inclined to bypass the precedents of the Superior Courts.
14. ' In view of the above, by recalling the order dated 17.6.2002, the application is dismissed.