Medical grounds
Medical grounds legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioner/accused was earlier granted bail which was subsequently cancelled, whereafter he absconded ; he was later on arrested when he sustained injuries in an incident reported by him
Sessions Court declined bail to the petitioner/accused sought on medical ground
Validity
Record revealed that in said incident, the petitioner had sustained injuries on right arm and elbow
Standing Medical Board, having been constituted by the Court, had opined that as a result of firearm injury, sensations in the right hand fingers had diminished both on volar and dorsal surface of the hand and it was concluded that the petitioner required further treatment on higher level consultation
Petitioner being a young man of 31/32 years and injury was on his working hand and if he was not provided specialized treatment then there was likelihood of permanent damage to his right arm
Such treatment was not available in jail hospital
First proviso to S. 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, deals with the grant of bail to a person who is under the age of 16 years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of non-bailable offence
Petitioner, under the magnitude/ quantification of sickness or infirmity, could not be declined bail on the sole ground that he was involved in a case which fell within the prohibitory clause of the S. 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Petitioner/ accused had made out his case for bail on medical grounds
Bail was allowed, in circumstances.
Through instant petition, the petitioner had taken a specific plea of grant of bail on medical grounds i.e. during his incarceration in the jail, he had lost sight in both of his eyes and had become blind, and therefore, his further incarceration in jail was dangerous to his health and life
To substantiate that plea, the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital was directed to constitute a Board of not less than five members including a specialist for assessment of the vision of both eyes of the petitioner
In compliance thereof, Board comprising Medical Superintendent, Ophthalmolo-gist, ENT Surgeon, Neurosurgeon and Neurophysician was constituted, which examined the petitioner
Said Board submitted its report before the Court which encompassed the opinions of all of the specialists
Taking into consideration the report of Medical Board constituted in compliance of order of High Court and documents annexed with the petition, prima facie, it had been established on record that the petitioner had a known history of "night blindness" since childhood, which had now developed into day blindness also
Moreover, there was no perception of light in both the eyes of petitioner and there was absence of direct and consensual light reflexes
Nothing was on record which could suggest that the cure for such a patient of "Retinitis Pigmentosa" was available in jail
Blindness in both the eyes was admittedly not just a disease but, due to non-availability of medical treatment, a permanent disability of the petitioner which made him most vulnerable and there was every likelihood that in existence of such a permanent disability, the life of petitioner would be constantly in danger as it required constant and around the clock care, which were admittedly not available in jail
Complainant had failed to counter the opinion/findings of Medical Board in its report
While, on the other hand, the medical report, was highly technical and opinion expressed by the medical board could not be brushed aside lightly by the Court in the absence of any counter-opinion or any medical literature placed before the court to contradict the opinion given by the Board
Investigation was complete
Physical custody of petitioner was no more required by the police for further investigation
Thus, his further incarceration for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution
Petition was accepted and petitioner was granted bail.
Investigation had been completed but the trial had not, even though there was a direction for conclusion of trial within 6 months
Accused was not in a position to either temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses
Where sickness and ailment of the accused was such that some specialized treatment was needed, which was not available within the premises of jail and his continued detention was hazardous to his life, the accused could be enlarged on bail
Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.
Where the court is satisfied of the sickness of the accused and that such disease cannot be properly treated in custody, then gravity of the disease outshines the gravity of the offence.
Accused, who sought bail on medical grounds along with another, was alleged to have committed murder and attempted at the life of others while being in the house of complainant
Standing Medical Board constituted by the Court reported that the accused was 75 years old; that he was suffering from multiple diseases of severe nature and that his treatment inside the jail might not be possible
Correct criteria for grant of bail to an accused in a non-bailable case on medical grounds was that the sickness or ailment with which the accused was suffering was such that it could not be properly treated within the jail premises and that some specialized treatment was needed and his continued detention in jail was likely to affect his capacity or was hazardous to his life
Petition for grant of bail was allowed on the sole medical ground.
Given advance age of petitioner (78 years) his cardiac health condition was a risk, nonetheless, his request for travelling abroad for his medical treatment could not be entertained
As a sick and infirm person, the accused was entitled to concessions that the law provided to all; these did not include offshore treatments
With scores of accused persons awaiting conclusions of their long drawn trials in over-crowded prisons, letting the few privileged to jump the queue in order to swap rigors of incarceration with comforts that few could afford would be a travesty
Request of accused for treatment abroad was declined, however, since his condition had alarmingly deteriorated and it was unanimously held by a good number of cardiac physicians of repute that he immediately required surgery for aortic valve transplant, a hugely risk intensive procedure that needed to be undertaken under most conducive environment, therefore, it would be appropriate to permit accused to undertake the procedure free from custodial stresses
Accused had been behind bars for a period exceeding two years; his continuous incarceration coupled with fragile health conditions and proposed surgery squarely made his case one of hardship and on that ground alone he was to be released on bail
Accused was granted bail in circumstances with the directions that he shall furnish a bank guarantee either personally or through a surety in the sum of Rs.100 million from a scheduled bank with the Registrar of the Supreme Court besides surrendering his travelling documents; that his name shall be placed on Exit Control List and he shall not be allowed to depart from the jurisdiction of the Accountability Court; that he shall join investigation as and when required by the NAB and also ensure his representation before the Accountability Court, either personally or through video link, whichever was found convenient under the circumstances; that in the event of physical incapacity of accused, his request for dispensation and representation through a counsel shall be considered most thoughtfully, and that in the event of non-compliance with the said directions, the NAB may approach the Supreme Court for the recall of concession of bail
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed.
Strong reasons are required to believe that despite availability of modern medical technology, life saving drugs, advance medical treatment and care, accused still requires treatment which is not generally available
Medical opinion should be so explicit in nature that further detention of accused in jail would be hazardous to his life
Bail on medical ground can be granted under S.497, Cr.P.C., if the court reaches to the conclusion on the basis of medical report that ailment with which the accused is suffering is such that it cannot be properly treated while accused is in jail.
Perusal of the medical opinion transpired that the condition of accused was stable and it was not opined that his detention in jail would be hazardous to his life, which was a requisite condition for grant of bail on medical ground
Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.
Inability of authorities from foreign country to take custody and transfer accused abroad due to COVID-19 ('Corona virus') concerns
Accused was alleged to have been involved in offences related to corruption in a foreign country (U.S.A.) and was wanted in said foreign country to stand trial
Held, that there was nothing preventing the Federal Government to extradite the accused to the foreign country in question
Matter regarding the extradition of accused had been placed before the Federal Cabinet but no decision was taken because the agenda item had been dropped
Ministry of Interior requested the Director General, F.I.A. to take the accused's custody from jail and hand him over to authorities from the foreign country
Warrant for custody of accused and his removal under the provision of the Extradition Act, 1972 was also sent
However, an email from the Embassy of the foreign country was brought on record, according to which, there would be a delay in the ability of the foreign country to take accused into custody and transfer him abroad due to COVID-19 ('Corona virus') concerns
Furthermore accused was 70 years of age and suffered from cardiac ailment
Persons of advanced age, such as the accused, were more susceptible to contract COVID-19 due to their low immunity
Prima facie, the intent behind section 12 of the Extradition Act, 1972 was that a fugitive offender should be discharged if he was not conveyed out of Pakistan two months' after he had been taken into custody to await his surrender
In view of such circumstances and in particular the position taken by the Embassy of the foreign country that there would be a delay in their ability to take the accused into custody and transfer him abroad, the application filed by accused for post-arrest bail was allowed with the directions that he shall appear before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on a fortnightly basis and shall not leave Islamabad Capital Territory without the permission of the High Court; that the accused shall tender appearance before the High Court on every date of hearing, and in the event he violated any of the said conditions, the Ministry of Interior and/or the F.I.A. may apply for the recall of present bail granting order.
Bail on medical grounds can be granted under first proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. at discretion of court based on particular facts and circumstances of each case:
Cardiac reports were self-explanatory and did not qualify accused for grant of bail on medical grounds as they clearly opined that accused could be treated in jail hospital or no hospitalization was required
Bail on medical grounds was not available to petitioner in respect of his cardiac problems
Bail on medical grounds could only be granted in cases relating to mental health issues in exceptional cases and under exceptional circumstances
Medical reports and particular ailments suffered by accused were common to most of prisoners as he had no previous history of mental illness
Illness of accused could be managed and treated in jail hospital with necessary medication as opined in psychiatric medical report
Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, common intention, public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct
Bail, refusal of
Medical grounds
Scope
Further enquiry
Scope
Loan to the tune of over seven million was sanctioned on the agricultural land already mortgaged with the same Bank
Petitioner, being officer of the Bank, allegedly issued fake pass books on 900 acres lands of elders of the complainant on the basis of the entries of two decades ago
Petitioner contended that his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry as he was respectable officer and in his advance age, suffering from diabetes and hypertension
Complainant contended that huge amount was outstanding against loan obtained by co-accused in connivance with the petitioner and revenue officials
Validity
Record revealed that the Revenue Authorities had passed the orders that entries in revenue record made in the year 1994 were fake
Six pass books were prepared on different dates during the year 2014 in which the said entries were kept and shown to be of 1994
Petitioner issued pass books on the basis of said fake entries and the co-accused, with the connivance of officials of the Bank, obtained loan and caused heavy loss to the national exchequer
Petitioner had not filed any application before the Trial Court to constitute Medical Board to determine as to which of the diseases was detrimental to his life in jail and simply placing record of hypertension and diabetes was not sufficient to consider bail on medical grounds
Every hypothetical question, which could creep into the mind and which could be resolved only after recording evidence during trial, would not make the case as that of further inquiry
Case of further inquiry would only be made out when data collected by the prosecution was not sufficient to provide reasonable grounds for believing that prima facie case did not exist against the accused
Petitioner, was prima facie involved in the present offence; he was nominated in the FIR and specific role was attributed to him
No enmity, mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant was available on the record
Sufficient material had been collected by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner with the commission of the offence charged with, which came outside the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497(2), Cr.P.C
Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstance.
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Accountability Court to imprisonment who sought suspension of sentence on grounds of his medical condition
Validity
Petitioner had a history of various cardiac complications and was a chronic kidney patient and had high blood pressure and diabetes
Medical condition of petitioner was not too serious when his medical condition deteriorated, only then suspension of sentence was sought
All medical reports of petitioner confirmed that he had above history and was also recommended for medical treatment and in such cases, medical reports and opinions of doctors was of utmost importance
None of reports suggested that continued incarceration of petitioner, in any way, was detrimental to his life
High Court declined to suspend sentence of petitioner as petition was without merit
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Plea of accused that his medical condition was serious and he needed specialized treatment, which was not available in jail
Validity
High Court while declining bail to accused had expressed its doubt as to the veracity and reliability of certain medical reports presented by the Medical Board
Report of another Medical Board stated that the condition of the accused was not life-threatening and was not likely to cause disability
No report from any doctor was available on record which suggested that the accused needed disc surgery with replacement
Bail petition filed by accused was dismissed accordingly.
Specialized treatment was needed and continuous detention of accused in jail was likely to affect his capacity or was hazardous to his life.
Paramount consideration for the grant of bail on medical grounds, was not the gravity of offences, but the extent of the sickness and infirmity of accused and his well-being, which could not be sacrificed on the altar of such considerations
Medical reports of accused in the present case, had determined that sickness or ailment with which accused was suffering, was such that it could not be properly treated within the premises of jail; that accused's continuous detention in jail was likely to affect his capacity, or was hazardous to his life
Said reports seemed to indicate that accused suffered, what was commonly known as a "Transient Ischaemic Attack" which could lead to paralysis of certain parts of the body in some cases and could contribute towards vascular and other forms of dementia
Medical reports indicated that use of hydrotherapy, was only a stop-gap management and that accused was in urgent need of disc replacement surgery
Accused had a number of serious medical ailments, which were likely to affect his capacity and had serious adverse lasting consequences on his health and condition, and needed urgent treatment
Accused was granted bail on medical ground.
Chairman NAB, after completion of investigation had found that accused and his co-accused had misused their authority and caused colossal loss to the national exchequer to the tune of Rs.17.338 billions
Case of accused person was not a case of mere procedural irregularity on the part of accused, but was a clear case of misuse or improper exercise of authority by him for an illegal gain
Prosecution had succeeded in establishing a case of dismissal of bail under relevant provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and within the ambit of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused being a senior doctor, had been accommodated with excellent treatment and hospitalization on recommendation of Medical Board
Strong reasons did not exist to believe that despite providing advance medical technology treatment and availability of medicines, accused who was being hospitalized in hospital of his own choice could avail a better treatment on bail
Nothing was available on record that required treatment of the diseases disclosed by Medical Boards, was not available in the city or in the country
Offence committed by accused, was a crime against the society as a whole, in connection with the public offices and he was not involved in an ordinary criminal matter
No compelling reason was available to enlarge accused on bail, when accused was facing serious charges
Bail was declined to accused, in circumstances.
Medical record of accused reflected that accused was suffering from severe ailments/sickness and proper treatment of those ailments/sickness was not available at one hospital and those could be treated at different hospitals
Medical Boards had opined that detention of accused in jail would be hazardous to his life, and it was advised that if proper treatment was not provided to accused, or he was not operated, he would be paralyzed
Co-accused, had already been granted bail by the Division Bench of High Court
Rule of consistency was applicable to the present case
Accused had been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the High Court on medical grounds in other cases against him, and said order was not challenged by the prosecution before the Supreme Court
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Judge of Trial Court had shown negligent conduct in the progress of the trial, neglecting his obligatory duty to conclude the same in minimum possible time
Accused was in jail for almost 3 years, while conclusion of the trial was not in sight because the prosecution witnesses were not turning up, in spite of coercive process being issued against them
Investigating officer of the case, who was a star witness for the prosecution, was fugitive from law in another criminal case, therefore, conclusion of the trial in the near future could not be expected
Furthermore, the accused was of advanced age and suffered from sickness, and while in custody, he had undergone an eye surgery
Accused was granted bail in such circumstances.
Accused in his capacity as the Finance Advisor to the Provincial Government was alleged to have misappropriated huge sums of money that was allocated for development projects
Plea of accused that he was entitled to bail on medical grounds
Validity
Medical Board and the doctor had not opined that the accused's continued incarceration would prove detrimental to his life or health
Accused was 40 years old, at which age generally a person did not have serious ailments; and there was nothing on record to show his pre-incarceration ailment
Medical Board had noted that the dorso-lumbar spine of the accused had developed "mild diffuse bulging" of two discs and had recommended further examination through a DEXA scan machine, however, as said machine was not available in the province, the Medical Board had suggested that he be referred to a hospital in another province for such purpose
Accused, if so advised, could move an application to the Trial Court and the Trial Court could make suitable arrangements for his transportation to the other province where he could be taken for a few days for such examination and then returned
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and bail was refused accordingly.
Accused allegedly committed theft of electricity and also provided such electricity to other inhabitants of the locality
Accused was an aged man and was also ill
Section 39-A of Electricity Act, 1910 provided a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment [thus it did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.]
Accused was behind bars for the last seven months
Challan had been submitted against accused but on account of non-availability of Special Judge, the trial was not proceeding
Supreme Court granted bail to accused in circumstances and directed the concerned authority to take immediate steps for appointment of Presiding Officers of Special Courts.
Corruption and corrupt practices, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment
Bail, grant of
Medical grounds
Accused suffering from multi infarcts dementia with history of brain haemorrhages and having poor sphincter control
Accused showed signs of fragility and poor health, when taken into custody
Reports of two different medical boards revealed that diseases from which accused was suffering required constant care including periodical tests and treatment, around the clock attendant, special diet and availability of quick medical advice etc. which were not available in jail
Accused was aged about 60 years and faced an ailment which required advance medical treatment, advice and psychotherapy and jail was not the place where such facilities could be provided
Constitutional petition was allowed and accused was released on bail.
"Medical grounds", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939296
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Medical grounds"
2007 Y L R 2477
Syed QABOOL MUHAMMAD SHAH — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi2010 S C M R 576
DADIO — Petitioner Versus SOBHARO and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2009 P Cr
AAMIR MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus JAVED ALI and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2011 M L D 923
HAMID ALLAUDDIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1999 Karachi 144
STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Applicant Versus ASIF ALI ZARDARI — Respondent
Court: High Court2000 S C M R 107
Mian MANZOOR AHMAD WATTO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2023 Y L R 1027
SADIQ — Petitioner Versus HIZBULLAH and another — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2018 S C M R 2023
SHARJEEL INAM MEMON — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2018 M L D 1912
FAREED AHMED YOUSFANI — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) through Chairman and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2021 M L D 907
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus AMJID HUSSAIN and another — Respondents
Court: Peshawar