P L D 1980 Karachi 289 (PLP)

The injured Mst. Sakina Begum has applied for cancellation of bail granted to accused Iqbal on 12-8-1970, and to Yousuf on 23-8-1979 by this Court. Contention - is that the factum for her remaining in the Hospital from 28-7-1979 till the date bail was granted was not brought to the notice of the High Court. Further contention is that Medico-Legal Report now shows that the first injury upon Mst. Sakina Begum was grievous. This opinion is based on the operation notes and it shows that there is tear in the mesentry 1' x 1' and perforation of small intestine 1}" x 1", to hence the reserved injury is declared as grievous. The order in favour of accused Iqbal was made on the basis that no specific parts have been assigned to accused Iqbal in the F. I. R. filed by Mst. Sakina Begum. The counsel for the applicant has not been able to show anything on record which could suggest any specific part of lqbal. I would, therefore, reject the prayer in respect of the cancellation of bail of Iqbal. Bail to Yousuf was granted on 23-8-1979, and that order would be read as a part of this order. The allegation against Yousuf was that he had caused chhuri injury to the complainant. I had granted bail to Yousuf as A. A.-G. had submitted that the nature of injury was reserved. I had made it clear that the bail was interim and it would be open to prosecution to move for cancellation in the High Court, if the circumstances warrant the same. The applicant's counsel has shown me the discharge certificate from Jinnah Hospital showing that Mst. Sakina Begum was admitted on 28-7-1979 and was discharged on 6-10-1979 after the period of two months and nine days. The supplementary Medico-Legal Report clear shows : the nature of injury which had been observed at the time of the operation. One of the injury is declared as grievous and this Medico, Legal Report is prima facie suggestive that an attempt at homicide was committed in view of the fact that the grievous injury had been caused on the abdomen of the woman by a chhuri. Moreover her stay in the Hospital for more than two months clearly points to a serious injury. Mr. Abdul Fateh Memon learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that one application could not be filed against two orders. This objection, is however, too technical. In any case, I have rejected the prayer against Iqbal, and therefore, I do not be consider this objection as fatal to the application. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant being the private party usually she could not be allowed to move for cancellation of bail. There are innumerable cases which are entertained by the High Court . as well as the Supreme Court on the basis of applications from private party in respect of cancellation of bail. The complainant being the injure she was entitled to move for cancellation of bail. There is no impediment of law in respect of such applications. The learned counsel has also argued that the Supplementary Medico-Legal Report is not the Medical Certificate. The same whatever it may be called as a Certificate of Casualty Medical Officer and it is based on the notes of operation and for the purpose of bail, it can be taken into consideration. Lastly, the counsel contended that the rupture, tear or perforation of intestine could be the result of different causes like fall, kicks and use of violence. This submission of the counsel may have some force after the doctor is cross-examined and some basis in facts is brought on record to sustain this submission. At the moment I do not find sufficient reason warranting a further inquiry into the injury in view of clear Medico-Legal Report for the purposes of this application. Involvement of Yousuf in stabbing is not disputed at least at this stage. In these circumstances, I cancel the bail granted to Muhammad Yousf alqbal, is however and direct that he should be taken into the custody. The bail granted to maintained S. G. D. Order accordingly.