2008 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus Syed NISAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus Syed NISAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus Syed NISAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Mushtaq Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Accused was stated to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, and he was examined by a doctor who opined that he was suffering from schizophrenia
Trial Court feeling dissatisfied with the said report got constituted a Medical Board comprising of three doctors for examination of accused, but on the date fixed for examination two Members of the Board could not arrive and the accused was not examined
Trial Court had refused bail to accused on the ground that nothing was available on record in support of his claimed ailment
Expert opinion, thus, was necessary for disposed of bail application
Impugned order was consequently set aside and the case was remanded to Trial Court with the dissection to get the accused examined by Medical Board and to decide the matter afresh in the light of the medical opinion.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J.
The above titled revision petition is directed against the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Sudhnoti, dated 6-9-2007, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts forming background of the revision petition are that a case under section 302, A.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Pallandri against the petitioner on the complaint of Syed Nisar Hussain Shah. It was reported that Muhammad Farooq a driver by profession committed murder of Syed Naveed Hussain Shah by causing dagger injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Wajid Hussain, Khalid Hussain and Dilshad Hussain. Motive behind the occurrence was a dispute over transport fare.
3. After registration of the case, the accused petitioner applied for bail on the ground that he was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence and his case was covered by provisos maintained under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The application was refused through the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that on the ground of ailment the accused petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. Sufficient material to prove that he was of unsound mind and was incapable of making his defence was brought on record. The trial Court failed to appreciate that being a lunatic his case was covered by section 466 and provisos under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He submitted that the impugned order being incorrect and against law may be set aside and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that no evidence to prove that the accused petitioner was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence was brought on record. The trial Court in light of provision of section 464, Cr.P.C. passed an order for constitution of Medical Board to examine the accused petitioner and submit a report but on the date fixed for examination, two members namely Dr. Khaliq Shaheen and Dr. Sharif-ul-Zaman could not arrive, consequently no opinion was given. He submitted that without obtaining report from the Board there was no lawful justification to allow the application. The impugned order being correct and in accordance with law needs no interference, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. It may be mentioned here that a Court, if there appears that an accused person is of unsound mind and consequently is incapable of making his defence, shall release him on bail but while considering the question, examination by merely putting questions to the accused is not sufficient and an expert opinion of a doctor or a board of doctors is also required for the purpose.
8. In the present case, the accused petitioner was examined by Dr. Shahid Iqbal Qureshi on 19-4-2006 who opined that he was suffering from "SCHIZOPHRENIA." Feeling dissatisfied with the report the trial Court ordered for a medical board to examine the accused petitioner, thereafter a Board comprising of Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Awan, Dr. Khaliq Shaheen and Dr. Sharif-uz-Zaman was constituted and 21-8-2007 was fixed for examination of the accused but two members of Board could not arrive thus, the petitioner was not examined on the date.
9. The trial Court while refusing bail observed that there was nothing on record in support of the claimed ailment and bail cannot be allowed without obtaining report from the medical board. Thus it implies that the expert opinion was necessary for disposal of the application and it was not appropriate for the trial Court to decide the same without obtaining report from the board.
10. In light of the facts listed above, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded with the direction that the accused petitioner shall be examined by the Board and trial Court shall decide the matter afresh after considering the opinion of the Board already constituted for the purpose. The revision petition is accepted in the terms indicated above. N.H.Q./39/Sh.C.(AJ&K) Case remanded.