1982 PLP 754 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought froth the order dated 30‑1‑1982 of the Lahore High Court whereby a petition for bail in a case under section 411, P. P. C. was dismissed. The petitioner is alleged to have received and retained a stolen motor cycle and thus is accused under section 411, P. P. C. He was arrested on 24‑9‑1981. An application for his bail was refused by a learned Magistrate on 5‑10‑1981. He then moved an application in the Sessions Court which came up for hearing on 17‑11‑1981 on the plea of insanity of the petitioner. The report submitted by the Medical Superintendent to the effect that the petitioner was "a man of abnormal behaviour and was a fit case to be sent to mental hospital" was noted. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on becoming aware of the said report "did not press the bail application" which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner made a fresh application for bail in the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 17‑12‑1981 on the ground of misconduct, because an attempt was made to conceal from the Court the fact that an earlier application for bail was dismissed, and with a further attempt to get the case fixed before another Court. The petitioner then sought bail from the High Court under section 498, Cr. P. C. His prayer having been refused, he has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed two arguments ; one that the case against the petitioner is an ordinary one. He is in jail for the last more than four months, and that ordinarily, there being no serious impediment, he should have been released on bail : two, that a serious plea of continuous insanity having been raised, the learned Courts below should have examined the case under section 466, Cr. P. C. Had it been done, the petitioner might have been released on bail. In so far as the first contention is concerned, we do not, in the circum stances of the case, attach any importance to it because by making an attempt to defraud the Sessions Court in the matter of bail, he disentitled himself of any concession in so far as the merits are concerned. The matter, however, does not end here. Section 466, Cr. P. C. reads as follows :‑‑ "466.‑‑(1) Whenever an accused person is found to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be (whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not), may releave him on sufficient security being given ‑that he shall be properly taken care of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance when required before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magis trate or Court appoints in this behalf. (2) If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, bail should not be taken, or if sufficient security is not given, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall order the accused to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as he or it may think fit, and shall report the action taken to the Provincial Government. Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the Provincial Government may have made under the Lunacy Act, 1912." It seems, apart from the petitioner's interest/grievance, a plea of insanity having been raised with some material in support of it, ii would be in public interest to examine this aspect of the matter. Indeed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, had proceeded to examine the case under section 466, Cr. P.C. but he dropped the matter on the asking of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As this aspect of the matter relating to the plea of insanity for the purpose of the provisions contained in section 466, Cr. P. C. has not been finally concluded, we feel that if so advised, the petitioner can still make an application under the said provisions. It would be competent for the Court concerned, keeping in view the gravity of the matter (alleged insanity) either to act under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 466, Cr. P. C. Subject to the foregoing observations, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.