"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns:st1=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 10\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 10\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"1989J012_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003ePURSUIT OF JUSTICE-- OR MR\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003co:SmartTagType namespaceuri=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\n name=\"City\"/\u003e\r\n\u003co:SmartTagType namespaceuri=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags\"\r\n name=\"place\"/\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eziaqat\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eziaqat\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e1\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2007-02-05T09:07:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2007-02-05T09:07:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e3844\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e21917\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier Technologies Pvt Ltd\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e182\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e51\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e25710\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e10.2625\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:GrammarState\u003eClean\u003c/w:GrammarState\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if !mso]\u003e\u003cobject\r\n classid=\"clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D\" id=ieooui\u003e\u003c/object\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\nst1\\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\nspan.GramE\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"\";\r\n\tmso-gram-e:yes;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003ePURSUIT OF\r\nJUSTICE-- OR MR. JUSTICE!\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\nBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:7.0pt;letter-spacing:.5pt;mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003eMr.\r\nAsif Saeed Khan Khosa, \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:7.0pt;\r\nletter-spacing:.7pt;mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003eBarrister-at-Law\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n7.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eThe \u003c/span\u003eage-old legal adage which advises a lawyer to \u0027know thy Judge\u0027\r\nhas, in the recent years, assumed greater significance and extended application\r\nnot only for the lawyers but also for the accused in a criminal case as now the\r\naccused (and also his counsel) has not only to know his Judge but to mark him\r\nwell so as to follow him, pursue him and to chase him whenever and wherever he\r\nis available for the purpose of repeating his bail application if his earlier\r\napplication in \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003ethis\r\nrespect had been dealt with by that particular Judge. The principle that \u003c/span\u003eall\r\n\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003esuccessive\r\napplications for bail on behalf of the same accused or any of his co-accused in\r\nthe same case or its cross-case and all applications for cancellation of bail\r\nin respect of any of the accused in that case or its cross-case are to be\r\nplaced before, heard and decided by the same learned Judge, who had disposed of\r\nthe earlier application in that respect is well-settled by now. For the past\r\nmany years the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has not only repeatedly\r\nreiterated and reconfirmed this principle but has also made sure to enforce the\r\nsame by way of cancelling any bail granted in violation or disregard of this rule.\r\n\u0027The State v. Zubair and 4 others\u0027 (P L D 1986 S C 173) is the latest,\r\nmanifestation and exposition in this respect. As this case is of paramount\r\nimportance to the subject in hand I propose to deal with the same in some\r\ndetail. In Zubair\u0027s case a bail application was repeated before the Peshawar\r\nHigh Court and the same was put up before the same \u003cspan class=GramE\u003elearned\u003c/span\u003e\r\nJudge who had dismissed the earlier bail application. That learned Judge,\r\nhowever, declined to deal with the second bail application for the reason that\r\nhe \u0026quot;had already expressed his opinion\u0026quot; in this behalf while\r\ndismissing the earlier application. Thus, the second application was placed\r\nbefore another \u003cspan class=GramE\u003elearned\u003c/span\u003e Judge who was, ultimately,\r\npleased to grant bail to the accused on merits. This order was assailed before\r\nthe Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court wherein the same was set aside \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.3pt\u0027\u003ewith \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eresultant cancellation of\r\nbail of the accused after condonation of a delay of 66 days in filing of the\r\npetition. While dealing with the subject the Court referred to:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;the\r\ngeneral practice which has been established by series o judgments \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003edelivered by this Court as well as by the\r\nHigh Courts during the last \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eabout 20\r\nyears, namely, that when a bail application of one or more \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eaccused is heard by a learned Single\r\nJudge of the High Court, it is he \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003ealone\r\nwho should also hear all the subsequent bail applications filed by \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe same or other accused in the, same case, \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:1.2pt\u0027\u003eor\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e the \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt\u0027\u003ecross-ease.\u0026quot;\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eReferring to the \u0027salutary principles\u0026quot; in this\r\nrespect the Court observed that besides avoiding a possibility of conflicting\r\njudgments this practice was necessary to dispel any \u0027false impression\u0027 that the\r\nsecond order by a different Judge was based on \u0027extraneous\r\nconsiderations\u0026quot;, and went on to declare that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nis mainly to avoid \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:\r\n1.25pt\u0027\u003ethis\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\r\nthat this Court has emphasized, over and over \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eagain,\r\nthat subsequent bail application must be placed for disposal before \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethe same \u003cspan class=GramE\u003elearned\u003c/span\u003e\r\nJudge who had dealt with the first bail \u0027application.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eThe Supreme Court further directed that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;If\r\nat the relevant time the first Judge is holding Court at a Bench other \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003ethan the one where the first bail\r\napplication was filed, it can always be \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003etransferred\r\nto that learned Judge, wherever he is \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt\u0027\u003esitting.\u0026quot;\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eMaking room for exceptional cases it was, however,\r\nobserved that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cspan\r\nclass=GramE\u003ethere\u003c/span\u003e would, of course, be cases where it is absolutely\r\nimpossible to \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eplace the second or\r\nsubsequent bail application before the same learned \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eJudge who had dealt with the earlier bail application of the same\r\n\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eaccused, or in the same case. In such\r\ncases, the learned Chief Justice of \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nconcerned High Court may order that it be fixed for disposal before \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003eany other learned Judge of that\r\nCourt.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eThe above-mentioned Zubair\u0027s case was in effect a\r\nfollow-up of the earlier case \u0027Khan Beg v. Sajawal and others\u0027 (P L D 1984 SC\r\n341) wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0027Normally\r\na bail petition should be placed before the same Judge who \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ehad dealt with the earlier petition. We\r\nare told that the learned Judge \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ewho\r\nhad dealt with the earlier petition had returned to \u003c/span\u003e\u003cst1:City\u003e\u003cst1:place\u003e\u003cspan\r\n  style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eLahore\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/st1:place\u003e\u003c/st1:City\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e. Even so, \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003ethe petition could have been sent to \u003c/span\u003e\u003cst1:City\u003e\u003cst1:place\u003e\u003cspan\r\n  style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eLahore\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/st1:place\u003e\u003c/st1:City\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e for hearing by the same \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003elearned Judge.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan class=GramE\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eIn another case \u0027Muhammad\r\nYousaf v.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:\r\n.6pt\u0027\u003e The State\u0027 (1984 S C M R\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e134) wherein bail was\r\nallowed by a Sessions Judge when two e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt\u0027\u003earlier\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;\r\nletter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e applications for bail on behalf of the same accused had\r\nalready been rejected by an Additional Sessions Judge who was still available\r\nat that station the High Court had cancelled the bail on this score and this\r\norder of cancellation of bail was upheld by the Supreme Court holding the\r\nconduct of the Sessions Judge to be \u0027highly improper\u0027 as the same was \u0027bound to\r\ncreate serious misgivings in the public mind against judicial officers\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u0027Farid v. Ghulam Hassan and others\u0027 (1968 S C M R\r\n924) is the earliest exposition of the \u0027Supreme Court in this respect wherein\r\nit was observed by their Lordships as under\u003cspan class=GramE\u003e:\u0026#8209;\u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nshould have been a matter of some concern to the learned Judge that \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eone of his brother Judges had already dealt\r\nwith the case and expressed \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003ehimself\r\nstrongly against the grant of bail by the Additional Sessions \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eJudge. Not only \u003cspan class=GramE\u003ethe long\r\nestablished practice \u0027of his Court, but also the \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003erule of propriety required that he should have transferred the\r\napplication \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003efor bail to the first\r\nJudge for disposal.\u0026quot;\u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eIn \u0027Muhammad Khan v. Sanaullah and another\u0027 (P L D\r\n1971 SC 324) the Supreme Court was pleased to cancel the bail granted by the\r\nHigh Court on the ground that the learned Judge of High Court had failed to\r\nfollow the \u0027rule\u0027 laid down in the above-mentioned Farid\u0027s case. It was\r\nobserved by their Lordships that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;We\r\nare told that when interim bail was granted the first Judge was not \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003eavailable. But having granted interim bail\r\nto the respondent No.1 he \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eshould have\r\nstayed his hand and sent the case back to the first Judge\u0027 \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ewho had in the first instance refused\r\nbail.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eThe same principle was reiterated in \u0027Muhammad Khan\r\nv. Muhammad Aslam and 3 others\u0027 (1971 S C M R 789) wherein it was held that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;In\r\nsuch a case the rule of propriety and harmony of the Court requires \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003ethat the case be referred to the same\r\nlearned Judge who had earlier \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003erefused\r\nbail.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n10.0pt;letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003eIn a recent case of \u0027Muhammad Nabi and others v.\r\nMuhammad Munir Ahmad and others\u0027 (1986 S C M R 1321) where the main case \u003c/span\u003ewas\r\npending before an Additional Sessions Judge and bail was granted to the accused\r\nby the Sessions Judge while attending to urgent matters only as a vacations\r\nJudge, the High Court had cancelled .the bail thus allowed and the Supreme\r\n\u0027Court had been pleased to uphold the High Court\u0027s Order as \u0026quot;fully justified\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eTaking their cue from the Supreme\r\nCourt the High Courts of different provinces have also generally applied and\r\nfollowed this principle religiously although some attempts have been made here\r\namp there to\u0027 meet new situations and to interpret \u0027the rule so as to promote\r\nfurther development of the theme. As for the \u003cst1:City\u003e\u003cst1:place\u003eLahore\u003c/st1:place\u003e\u003c/st1:City\u003e\r\nHigh Court as far back as 1968 in Muhammad Asian\u0027s case. (1968 P Cr. L J 152)\r\nit was held that a conduct in violation of this principle was \u0027not proper\u0027. \u003cspan\r\nclass=GramE\u003eIn \u0027Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori v.\u003c/span\u003e The State\u0027 (P L D 1975 Lah.754)\r\na Division Bench of the Lahore High Court discussed this principle in detail\r\nand laid down elaborate guidelines in this regard. This ruling was subsequently\r\nexpressly relied upon in the case of Muhammad Yousaf (1979 P. Cr. L J. 665) by\r\na Full Bench of the Lahore High: Court which referred to the principle in this\r\nrespect as \u0026quot;the Rule\u0026quot;. In the case of Ghulam Hussain (1987 P Cr. L J\r\n852) a learned Single Judge described it as a \u0027rule of propriety\u0027. But in the case\r\nof Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e(1978 P Cr.L\r\nJ 320) although bail was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court\r\nbut the same was cancelled by a Full Bench of . $rich that learned Single Judge\r\nwas not a member. It is, however, understandable that once the main case had\r\nbeen taken up by the High Court for trial in its original jurisdiction and a\r\nFull Bench was specially constituted in this respect all matters pertaining to\r\nthat case (including the question of cancellation of bail) had then to be\r\nreferred to that specially \u0026quot;constituted Full Bench alone. In the case of\r\nMuhammad Abbas (1984 P Cr. L J 1753) a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court\r\ntermed this-principle under discussion to be \u0027the rule\u0027 which was to be\r\nobserved \u0027in propriety\u0027. \u003cspan class=GramE\u003eThe case of Faqir Muhammad (1985\r\nPCr.LJ 2851) although strikes the same note but a totally fresh angle is\r\nintroduced therein.\u003c/span\u003e Prior to this case any bail granted in violation of\r\nthis rule was cancelled by the superior Courts on this score alone as having\r\nbeen allowed illegally. But in Faqir Muhammad\u0027s case after reiterating the\r\nprinciple and practice in this respect and after finding that the accused were\r\neven otherwise entitled to bail in that case the learned Judge of High Court\r\nwent on to dismiss the application for cancellation of bail by observing that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;The\r\nfault in this case is of the Additional Sessions Judge and I am not going to \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epenalize the respondents for his\r\ncarelessness.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThis pronouncement of the High\r\nCourt came as a breath of fresh air and opened up a new door of hope for an\r\naccused whose case merited bail \u003cspan class=GramE\u003ewho\u003c/span\u003e had otherwise gone\r\nwrong in procedure. Suddenly it was realized that the boot was in fact on the\r\nother leg. It was not for the accused alone but mainly for the Judge to ensure\r\nthe compliance of the long-established \u0027rule\u0027. Thus, the accused was not to be\r\nvisited with a penalty of deprivation of his liberty for an \u0027act or omission of\r\nhis Judge. A further inroad was made into tills rule by the then learned Chief\r\nJustice of the Lahore High Court in the case of Muhammad Iqbal (P L D 1985\r\nLah.134) wherein the following observations were made by his Lordship with\r\nreference to the Supreme Court\u0027s ruling in Khan Beg\u0027s case (P L D 1984 S C\r\n341). \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\u0027The\r\nSupreme Court judgment to the effect that the bail petition should be placed \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003ebefore the same learned Judge who had\r\ndealt with the earlier petition only relates \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e           \u003c/span\u003eto\r\nthe circumstances where the earlier petition made before one Judge was \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003ewithdrawn and then a fresh petition was moved\r\nthereafter so that the same be \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003edealt with\r\nby another Judge. It is in these specific circumstances that the \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSupreme Court has directed that bail\r\npetition should be placed before the same \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eJudge\r\nwho had dealt with the earlier petition, as it had disapproved the practice or \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eprocedure adopted in such cases. But\r\nwhere an earlier bail petition had been \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003edecided\r\non merits and thereafter subsequent bail petition is moved by the same \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003epetitioner, there is no reason why it\r\nshould not be dealt with by another Judge if \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nprevious Judge is not available at a Bench or the Principal Seat. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn this case of Muhammad Iqbal we\r\nsee the learned Chief Justice, conscious of the enormous administrative and\r\nother difficulties posed by a rigid observance of the rule laid down by the\r\nSupreme Court, opening up a new door through the means of interpretation. This\r\nattempt, however, appears to be short-lived as the recent enunciation by the\r\nSupreme Court in Zubair\u0027s case (P L D 1986 S C 173) seems to have plugged the\r\ngap and slammed that door also.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Sind High Court has also\r\nfollowed the oft-repeated rule laid down by the Supreme Court in its letter and\r\nspirit. A conduct in violation of this rule was termed as \u0027contrary to judicial\r\nprinciple\u0027 in the case of Niaz Muhammad (1984 P Cr. L J 2676). In Sher\r\nMuhammad\u0027s case (1984 P Cr. L J 3126) where bail was refused by one Additional\r\nSessions Judge but was subsequently allowed by another Additional Sessions\r\nJudge the High Court deprecated this conduct as \u0026quot;contrary to principles of\r\nlaw\u0027. In the case of Muhammad Yousaf (1986 P Cr. L J 1246) where earlier two\r\napplications for bail were rejected but the third application in this respect\r\nwas allowed by a different Additional Sessions Judge the High Court cancelled\r\nthe bail holding this conduct to be \u0027illegal and improper\u0026quot;. In \u0026quot;The\r\nState v. Aziz alias Abdul Aziz\u0027 (P L D 1985 Kar.27) the High Court went one\r\nstep further and held that if the main case was pending trial before a Sessions\r\nJudge then any bail application in that case should also be decided by the\r\nSessions Judge himself and the same ought not to be transferred or entrusted to\r\nan Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. As it has been noticed earlier the\r\nsame view has found favour with the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of\r\nMuhammad Nabi (1986 S C M R 1321). A different situation arose \u0027in the case of\r\nIbrahim Abdul Rehman Muhammad (P L D 1986 Kar. 351) wherein a bail application\r\nwas dealt with by a learned Judge of High Court in the temporary absence\u0027 of\r\nthe Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), who was also a Judge of the same High\r\nCourt, in a matter pertaining to the special jurisdiction of the latter. At the\r\ntime of moving of the second bail application by the same accused in that case\r\na question arose as to whether the same should be placed before the learned\r\nJudge who had dealt with the earlier bail application or before the learned\r\nSpecial Judge who had by that time returned to the, Principal \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eSeat of the High Court and\r\nwas, thus, available. It was ultimately held that the second application was to\r\nbe heard and decided by the learned Special Judge as he was by then available.\r\nThe rationale is understandable as the matter pertained to the jurisdiction of\r\na Special Judge under a special law.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eThe resume of the case-law detailed above clearly\r\nestablishes that notwithstanding a few variations here and there necessitated\r\nby exigencies of the situations \u0027the rule\u0027 and \u0027the principle\u0027 repeatedly\r\nemphasized by the honourable Supreme Court in this respect is generally\r\nstrictly followed and rigidly applied by the High Courts and the Subordinate\r\nCourts. This rigidity and inflexibility of the rule has, however, given rise in\r\nthe recent years to multiple causes of extreme hardship and frustration in many\r\nways. It is to these sore points that I now turn in the following paragraphs:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eGone are the good old days (probably for \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:1.2pt\u0027\u003eever)\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e when a High Court used to\r\nhave only one seat and all its learned Judges used to hold Court in different\r\nrooms of the same compact building. The \u0027rule\u0027 that all subsequent bail\r\napplications must be placed before the same learned Judge who had dealt with\r\nthe earlier application in this respect was conveniently applied and enforced\r\nas an application put up before a different Judge could, without any delay,\r\nexpense or inconvenience, be transferred and despatched to another learned\r\nJudge holding Court in the room next door. The \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.85pt\u0027\u003e\u0027principle\u0027,\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;\r\nletter-spacing:.9pt\u0027\u003etherefore,\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;\r\nletter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e was not only \u0027salutary\u0027 but also not inconvenient and the\r\nsame pinched only those clever manipulators who, deceitfully or otherwise,\r\nwanted to play tricks with the Court. Everything in this respect was \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:2.7pt\u0027\u003elie\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e till the beginning of the\r\nyear 1981 when suddenly it was decided to break up the High Courts into various\r\npermanent Benches which would operate at the Divisional \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.9pt\u0027\u003elevels.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e The principle behind the\r\ncreation of such permanent Benches was again salutary \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:1.05pt\u0027\u003ei.e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e to provide speedy justice\r\nat the doorsteps. Besides many other phenomenal changes that the High Courts\r\nhad to resultantly undergo one that concerns us here for the purposes of the\r\nsubject under discussion is that many of the honourable Judges of various High\r\nCourts had to leave the now-called \u0027principal seats\u0027 and to hold Courts at\r\nthose Benches. Since thereafter we have witnessed a continuous and unceasing\r\nshifting and transfer of the learned Judges from one Bench to another.\r\nSometimes the movement is so rapid and short-termed that it is difficult to\r\nkeep track and to know at which Bench a particular learned Judge is holding his\r\n.Court. It is with reference to this major .development that I now proceed to\r\nexamine the \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.9pt\u0027\u003e\u0027propriety\u0027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e of a rigid and inflexible\r\napplication of the \u0027rule\u0027 under discussion which has, in the changed\r\ncircumstances, caused untold inconvenience to the public at large and practical\r\ndifficulties to the persons connected with the legal profession. Some such\r\ninstances of hardship and inconvenience may be enumerated as follows\u003cspan\r\nclass=GramE\u003e:\u0026#8209;\u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:1.4pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:1.4pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003e(a)\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e The transfer of the\r\nlearned Judge (who had earlier on dealt with the \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ematter) from one particular Bench to another hardly comes to the\r\n\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eknowledge of an ordinary rustic\r\nfamily of an accused who invariably \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003etravel\r\nlong distances and approach the relevant Bench having the \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eterritorial jurisdiction in the first\r\ninstance only to find \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt\u0027\u003eout \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003ethat now they \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehave to go to another Bench hundreds of miles\r\naway from the earlier \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eBench.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(b) After\r\nreaching the new Bench they have to engage a different \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ecounsel in different and unfamiliar surroundings which not only\r\nputs \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003ethem to extra expense but also\r\nmakes them vulnerable to unwholesome \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eabuses\r\nof the profession curried out by some undesirable elements.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(c) It\r\nis also quite likely that by the time the accused\u0027s bail application \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eis drafted, processed and filed that\r\nparticular learned Judge may leave \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003ethat\r\nparticular Bench and go on to another Bench at the other end of the \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eprovincial boundary. Even otherwise it is\r\ncommon practice experienced \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eby\r\nlawyers practising before the Benches that in a sizable proportion of \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebail matters an application is admitted to\r\nhearing by one learned Judge \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003eand\r\nthen finally disposed of by another learned Judge in the absence of \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003ethe former.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(d) Although\r\nthe Constitutional requirement under Article 198(5) that a \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003eJudge be nominated to a Bench for a period\r\nof not less than one year is \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeing\r\nfollowed by the High Courts but in practical terms, some inroads \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003ehave been made in this one year rule.\r\nIt has been observed that within \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nassigned period of one year a Judge is recalled to the Principal Seat \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003efor weeks together after every couple\r\nof months or so leaving the \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eaccused\r\nabsolutely dumbfounded and confused as to whether they \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eshould, during that period, approach that particular Judge\r\nat the \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003ePrincipal Seat for the\r\npurposes of their bail application or to wait till \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethe learned Judge returns to the Bench after a few weeks. This\r\nsituation \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eassumes alarming proportions\r\nduring the summer and winter vacations \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ewhen\r\nthe learned Judges are assigned duties at various Benches only for \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003ea week or two at a stretch. Imagine a\r\nlearned \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:1.1pt\u0027\u003ejudge,\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e nominated to a \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003eBench for one year, going as Vacation\r\nJudge to another Bench only for \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003ea\r\nweek and granting or refusing bails in scores of cases. After his \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003edeparture from that latter Bench that\r\nlearned Judge is not likely to \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003ereturn to\r\nthat Bench for at least one year or so. It would only mean that \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethose scores of accused and their hundreds\r\nof co-accused in those cases \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eor their\r\ncross-cases are now to have nothing to do with their own Bench \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003e(created for providing speedy justice at\r\ntheir doorsteps) and for the \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003epurposes\r\nof seeking bail or its cancellation they have to approach \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eanother Bench for at least one year or even\r\nmore unless that learned \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eJudge visits\r\nthat particular Bench again. But in such a case of \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eoccasional visit the learned Judge might again be gone before\r\nthe \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eaccused even comes to know of\r\nthis development. This is an example of \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eonly\r\none Judge coming on a short working visit to a particular Bench. \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eKindly imagine the enormity, the gigantic\r\nproportion and the magnitude \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003eof the\r\nsituation when scores of learned Judges are seen travelling from \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eBench to Bench and holding Court at various\r\nplaces for short spells \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ewith no\r\nfuture certainty of their schedule of return. Thus, a rigid and \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003einflexible application of the \u0027rule\u0027\r\nunder discussion which is mainly \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003ebased\r\nupon a principle of \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:\r\n.9pt\u0027\u003e\u0027propriety\u0027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:\r\n.7pt\u0027\u003e may ultimately destroy the very \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ebasis\r\nand defeat the very spirit of the Constitutional mandate \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:1.05pt\u0027\u003evis-a-vis\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ecreation of these Benches and nomination of the Judges thereto.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(e) \u003c/span\u003eA\r\nsituation can be visualized where that particular learned Judge proceeds on \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eleave or where he declines to hear the\r\nsecond bail application for some reasons \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eand\r\nwhere the earlier decision was not given on merits and where the subsequent \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003ebail application is filed on totally new and\r\nfresh grounds. In such like situations a \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003ereference\r\nto the learned Chief Justice or working out any other feasible \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003earrangement would pose great practical\r\ndifficulties.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(f) \u003c/span\u003eTransfer\r\nof files from one Bench to another entails long and uncertain delays \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003ewhich may undermine the urgency\r\nwhich is inherent in a bail matter as, after all, \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eit deals with the question of liberty of a citizen who is\r\npresumed in the eyes of \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003elaw to be\r\ninnocent till proved guilty a Court of law. There may be cases where \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe offences involved are bailable and cases\r\nwhich require further inquiry within \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\npurview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. According to the honourable Supreme \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eCourt \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt\u0027\u003ein \u003c/span\u003eDr. Behram Khan\u0027s case (P L D 1986 S C 118) in such like cases\r\nthe \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eaccused is entitled to bail as a\r\nmatter of right. It goes without saying that not only \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethat justice delayed is justice denied but it is equally true\r\nthat a right delayed also \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eamounts to\r\nthe denial of that right.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(g) \u003c/span\u003eProduction\r\nof record of cases by the investigating agencies at Benches \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003esituated far away from the police\r\nstations concerned may not only entail long \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eabsence\r\nof the Investigating Officers from the places of occurrence arid inquiry \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003ebut may put extra burden on the public\r\nexchequer besides hampering the other \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eduties\r\nregarding law and order which such officers have also to attend to.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(h) \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nunremitting traffic of files from one Beech to another may also cause loss \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eor destruction of some files and such\r\na remittance may also suffer at the viands of \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ethose\r\nwho may be interested in delaying the matter to the detriment of the \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eaccused.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-size:\r\n8.0pt;letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003e(i) \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nthe recent years it has been noticed that bail matters have constituted almost \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003ehalf of the disposal of the High Courts.\r\nIn other words now we can expect a \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003esizable\r\nnumber of a High Court\u0027s files to be always in the transit besides, it is \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eneedless to mention, a large section of the\r\npublic also sweating along the track.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0027From the instances referred to\r\nabove and from many more that can be enumerated in this respect, it is clear\r\nthat in the changed circumstances the \u0027rule\u0027 under discussion, although\r\nsalutary and proper in its own right, is not advancing the ends of providing\r\nspeedy and inexpensive justice at the doorsteps of the citizens. Article 37(d)\r\nof the Constitution, dealing with the Principles of Policy, categorically\r\nprovides that the State shall \u0026quot;ensure inexpensive and \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eexpeditious \u003c/span\u003ejustice\u0026quot; and under\r\nArticle 29(1) a strict observance of these principles of policy has been\r\nreferred to as the \u0026quot;responsibility of the concerned organ of the\r\nState\u0026quot;. The Judiciary, being the relevant organ of the State in this\r\nrespect, is, thus, under a Constitutional obligation and responsibility to\r\n\u0027ensure inexpensive \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eand \u003c/span\u003eexpeditious\r\njustice\u0027. The honourable superior Courts have almost always referred to the\r\n\u0027rule\u0027 under discussion to be a rule of \u0027propriety\u0027 and not of substantive law.\r\nTherefore, under the changed circumstances a rule of \u0027propriety\u0027, which\r\ndetracts the judiciary from its Constitutional \u003cspan class=GramE\u003eobligation\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncould hardly offer an insurmountable obstacle. \u003cspan class=GramE\u003eAfter all a\r\nrule of propriety, by its very nature, can never be rigid or fixed.\u003c/span\u003e It has\r\nto mould and bend a little with the changed circumstances. A \u0027propriety\u0027 in one\r\nsense may not be allowed .to become an \u0027impropriety\u0027 in another. In the\r\nabove-mentioned Zubair\u0027s case (P L D \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003e1986\r\nS \u003c/span\u003eC 173) the honourable\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.3pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eSupreme Court, after referring to the\r\npossibility of a \u0026quot;false impression\u0026quot; that the subsequent order passed\r\nby a different Judge was based on \u0026quot;extraneous considerations\u0026quot;,\r\nobserved that \u0026quot;it is mainly to avoid this\u0026quot; that this principle was\r\nbeing emphasized \u0026quot;over and over again\u0026quot; over a number of years. The\r\nintegrity of the learned Judges, no doubt, is beyond question. But an effort to\r\ndispel and forestall one \u0026quot;false impression\u0026quot;, when contrasted with the\r\ndifficulties and hardships posed in the changed circumstances in this respect,\r\nmay lead to the possibility of fostering of another impression, somewhat\r\njustified in the present context, that dispensation and pursuit of justice has\r\nbecome more and more difficult and cumbersome. Creation of such an additional\r\nimpression is also equally dangerous, unhealthy and unwholesome because in such\r\nan eventuality the common man may lose faith in the judicial system itself.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn the end it needs pointing out\r\nthat the application of this principle and rule has not been extended to the\r\ndisposal of other miscellaneous matters in civil and criminal cases where the\r\nstakes of the parties are equally high. If a possibility of the said \u0027false\r\nimpression\u0027 in other matters has failed to cast a shadow of doubt on the\r\nunquestionable integrity of the honourable judges of our superior judiciary\r\nthen the disposal of miscellaneous bail matters may not be made an exception in\r\nthis respect.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eFinally it may be stated in\r\nutmost humility that the principle under discussion is indeed salutary but in\r\nthe changed circumstances on account of \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003ethe\r\n\u003c/span\u003ecreation of various permanent Benches of the \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eHigh \u003c/span\u003eCourts and a continuous transfer of Judges from one Bench to\r\nanother a rigid and inflexible application of the rule needs a little\r\nrelaxation and the honourable\u0027 Supreme Court \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003ePakistan, in an appropriate case, \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003emay \u003c/span\u003egraciously consider taking a fresh \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003elook \u003c/span\u003eat the problem with a view \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eto \u003c/span\u003efinding some way out for minimising the hardship in genuine\r\ncases.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"