2003 P Cr (PLP)

(1) Sirajuddin v. Riasuddin and another 1980 PCr.LJ 1066. In this case cancellation of bail was declined as the petitioner was heart patient and being treated in Cardio Vascular Institute. (2) Abdul Aziz v. (1) Bashir Ahmad, (2) The State PLD 1966 SC

658. In this case it was observed that where there is reasonable ground for believing that an accused person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, bail may yet be granted if he be sick or infirm. (3) Rai Attaullah Khan v. Raja Anar Khan 1979 SCMR

471. In this case accused being infirm, suffering from high blood pressure, angim and gastritis and he was granted bail. (4) Muhammad Ashraf Khan, v: The State 1990 PCr.LJ

169. In this case accused was suffering from acute and serious ailments and was admitted to bail. (5) Abdul Hameed v. The State 1992 MLD

414. In this case accused was found to be a sick person and he was granted bail. (6) Mian Muhammad Aslam Goraya and others v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ

394. In this case accused suffering from damage to anterolateral surface of heart and malady of nature which might strike without any warning. No: arrangement for immediate and effective treatment available in jail, he was (7) Malik Muhammad Yousafullah Khan v. The State PLD 1995 SC

58. In this case it was observed that the ailment with which the accused is suffering is such that it cannot be properly treated while in custody in jail. The accused was granted bail. (8) Muhammad Sachal v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1597. In this case Medical Certificate duly issued by Cardiologist after examining accused, accused was found to be heart patient and his detention in jail would be detrimental to his life. Bail was granted on the basis of his ailment. (9) Abbas v. The State 2000 SCMR

212. In this case accused was suffering from "Hapatitis-C" (viral infection) as per report of Medical Board. Accused was granted bail. (10) Zakhim Khan Masood v. Special Judge, Central, Rawalpindi and 3 others 1998 SCMR 1065. In this case it was observed that ailment of accused according to medical report was likely to have hazardous effects on his life because stress and strain could aggravate his disease. Bail was allowed to accused. (1) Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad and 3 others 1976 SCMR

391. In this case accused was enlarged on bail on the grounds of there being prima facie probability of counter-version. (2) Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1845. In this case it was observed that case of two counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite-party. Bail was granted to the accused. (3) Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State 1997 SCMR

251. In this case it was observed that case was one of cross-version and the accused had also suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant party. Accused were allowed bail accordingly. (4) Zafar Iqbal v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1840. In this case it was observed that case was one of counter-version one version was given by complainant in F.I.R. and other was given by opposite party. Bail was granted to accused. The counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has urged that specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the F.I.R. and, therefore, it being a murder case the benefit of bail cannot be given. The counsel for the State states that this bail application should be dismissed. I have heard the three parties at length. Enough material has been placed on record to show that indeed the applicant has got serious medical problems. The documents that have been brought to my attention have been signed by top Surgeons and doctors and have been issued by N.I.C.V.D. Agha Khan Hospital and other medical Institution. Credence can be given to these documents whilst deciding a case for the grant or bail. In the above cited cases Courts have been inclined to grant bail where the applicant has been able to satisfy the Court that he is sick or infirm and suffers from a problem that would be aggravated if he remains incarcerated. Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail where the accused has been suffering from high blood pressure and cardiac problems. In this case also the applicant seems to be suffering from cardiac problems. Besides the ground of medical the applicant has also claimed that he is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of counter-version. On this ground also there are several case-laws and some of them have been mentioned above. The concept behind granting the concession of bail in spite of the prohibition under section

497. Cr.P.C. is that if the applicant is able to show to the Court that more than one version of the incident is available than a doubt is created as to whether prima facie a case exists against the accused or not. In this case also there are three F.I.Rs. and the same incident has been shown in three different angles. It would, therefore, necessitate recording of be decided whether indeed the accused is guilty or not. I would grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-274/K Bail granted.