Medical ground

Accused had not sought bail on medical ground despite availability of such ground rather he had waited for the fate of his bail petitions so filed on merit; then, he applied for his release on medical ground in second round, therefore, the petition was not maintainable

Ailment of the accused was not as such, which was either hazardous to his life or the same could not be treated from the jail, therefore, the discretion so available under the law could not be exercised in his favour

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Share of loss attributed to accused was only 43 lacs which was relatively petty amount and did not fall within the mandate of NAB, which was to deal with mega corruption cases dealing with losses running into millions if not billions of rupees

Accused was suffering from severe psychiatric issues and according to his medical report it was very difficult to treat him in jail for his mental health issues

Continued detention of accused in jail might be hazardous to his health

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical claim cannot be accepted as claimed rather is required to be investigated by Medical Board comprising of experts in the subject to ascertain type and severity of ailment and availability of essential treatment inside jail.

Jail authorities reported that petitioner was a known patient of hypertension, diabetes mellitus and CVA with left hemiparesis i.e. weakness of left upper and lower limbs

C.T. Scan revealed right basalganglionic pathology

Petitioner was being provided necessary treatment for the past 8 months but he was suffering from paralysis and was bed-ridden who was unable to move, urinate, defecate or even change his clothes

Health condition of petitioner was not only deteriorated but also miserable

Petitioner was arrested on 12-11-2019, process of investigation was complete and his physical custody was not required for further investigation

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Angina class III, Hypertension, Parkinson and Diabetes were the ailments on the basis of which accused sought his release from custody on bail

Validity

Petitioner-accused needed treatment and nursing

Associated diseases of hypertension were apparently main cause of associated heart diseases and petitioner-accused should be away from home stresses and other related tensions and routine business issues

High Court allowed petitioner-accused to avail medical treatment from hospitals and doctors of his choice at his risk and cost and should not be delayed under any circumstances

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Medical reports showed that accused was suffering from aliment and he was in need of the treatment in a tertiary care hospital, however, Medical Board had not opined that ailment from which accused was suffering, was likely to have hazardous effects on his life and his health would be deteriorated if remained inside the jail

Accused could get proper treatment for the diseases, which were easily available to him in the tertiary care hospital as an under-trial prisoner

Bail petition was dismissed.

Petitioner had relied upon reports of various Medical Boards to satisfy legal requirements for grant of bail on medical grounds

Validity

Due to past medical history of petitioner his ailment was not feigned

All Medical Boards were agreed that petitioner needed physiotherapy

One of the Medical Boards noted that petitioner required physiotherapy two times a day and hydrotherapy three to four times a day and that hydrotherapy was not available at the hospital

Both the therapies were not available in the jail hospital

Petitioner could be taken under guard from jail hospital to a hospital of his choice in the city where required physiotherapy and hydrotherapy whichever petitioner needed would be provided to him at his own expense and then petitioner could return to jail after each treatment

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Medical Board opined that sickness/ailment of petitioner should be treated in a specialized cardiac unit and in his current condition until revascularization was done, his detention might affect his capacity or could be hazardous to his life

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Report of Standing Medical Board revealed that accused had a prolonged history of chronic psychiatric illness which was schizoaffective in nature and needed treatment

Accused did not understand the nature of his crime at the moment

Trial Court was not right in refusing grant of bail to accused on medical ground

Accused was suffering from mental disorder and incapable of making his defence, therefore, his case was squarely covered under S.466 read with S.497 Cr. P. C.

Bail was granted accordingly.

Complainant alleged that petitioner was not entitled for the concession of bail as he remained absconded for noticeable period

Medical Board constituted to examine petitioner gave definite finding that petitioner had history of Ankylosing Spondylitis Grade-I and he was suffering from low backache morning stiffness, the pain increased with prolong rest and restricted spinal movements with bilateral facet arthropathy

Board had suggested regular physiotherapy and stay in hospital for minimum six to twelve weeks, where such facilities were available

Such facilities were admittedly not available in the jail

Petitioner though was one of the nominated accused persons but complainant while recording his statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., had excluded his name, which led to the conclusion that case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail could not be refused merely on absconsion as the petitioner had claimed to remain out of city for his livelihood and after coming back he came to know about the case

Bail was granted to the accused, in circumstances.

Accused moved bail application claiming fresh grounds on statutory as well as medical reasons being patient of heart and diabetes

Validity

Accused was suffering from common diseases which could conveniently be treated in jail hospital and were not life threatening which could entitle the accused for grant of bail on such ground

Medical report of the accused must show that his treatment in jail was not possible at all or that his condition was such that his further detention was threatening to his life or he was suffering from some contagious or transmissible disease

In absence of any of said conditions, bail on medical ground could not be granted

Record revealed that the witnesses on most of the dates were present but defence did not proceed with the matter and hearing kept on postponing on the asking of accused or his counsel, resulting in causing delay in the conclusion of the matter

Where adjournments were sought and the witnesses for prosecution were not cross-examined for no justifiable reason, such conduct of the accused seeking adjournments could be taken note of and bail could be refused even after lapse of statutory period

Head injuries to the victim were attributed to the accused which were caused in desperate manner

Offence under S.336, P.P.C. was added during the investigation

Accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing repeated hatchet blow on the head of the victim-Recovery of the crime weapon had been effected from the accused which connected him with the commission of offence

Offences with which the accused was charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

No case for grant of bail was made out in circumstances.

Accused was suffering from common diseases which could conveniently be treated in jail hospital and the said diseases were not life threatening which could entitle the accused for grant of bail on such ground

Medical report of the accused must show that his treatment in jail was not possible at all or that his condition was such that his further detention was threatening to his life or he was suffering from some contagious or transmissible disease

In absence of any of said conditions, bail on medical ground could not be granted.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Bail, refusal of

Medical ground

Accused was of seventy nine years of age

Infirmity

Scope

Medical report relied upon was one year and two months old and during such period accused was adequately treated (Hepatitis-C) in jail premises and no material was placed on record thereafter of any deterioration in his health

Accused had placed no material, medical or otherwise on record in support of his infirmity and had simply raised the point of his age

Bail was refused accordingly.

Petitioner was accused facing trial under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, who was a patient of Hepatitis "C" and had been in custody for more than two years

Validity

Petitioner was an ailing person who was suffering from various ailments including diabetes, hepatitis "C" and liver cirrhosis

Main accused persons had already been released either on bail or on their having entered into plea bargain / voluntary return

Material witnesses were yet to be examined by prosecution and there was no possibility that trial could be concluded at an early date

Prosecution witnesses so far examined did not directly implicate petitioner with commission of alleged offence and the same required further evidence to prove guilt of petitioner after conclusion of trial

Petitioner had made out a case of further inquiry and he was no more required for further investigation, as prosecution had already obtained evidence / material in respect of reference in question

Challan was submitted and trial was proceeding before Accountability Court and there was no possibility that petitioner, if released on bail would tamper with the evidence

Bail could not be withheld as punishment, particularly when matter required further inquiry

Petitioner had already faced agony of prolonged inquiry, investigation and he was confined in jail during trial for a period of almost more than two years

Case of petitioner was one of further inquiry as well as hardship in view of his serious ailments and inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which could not be attributed to petitioner, whereas prosecution story could not be considered as free from doubt

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner though was aged and suffering from a number of ailments at the time of examination yet he could be adequately treated in jail hospital

Continued detention of petitioner in jail was not hazardous to his life

High Court keeping in view the report of Medical Board, declined to extend benefit of ill health to the petitioner

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Petitioner was Sub-Registrar at the office of Board of Revenue and he was arrested by National Accountability Bureau on the allegation that he registered documents with lesser amounts than the due amount, cheated members of public at large and caused loss to national exchequer

Plea raised by accused was that he charged duties on the basis of valuation notified by Provincial Government and that he was suffering from kidney disease

Validity

Authorities failed to show that there was any criminal act of financial nature, within the meaning of S. 9(a)(ix) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, committed by accused to cheat or defraud public at large or caused loss to public exchequer

More substantial evidence was needed to prove criminal liability of accused, which could only be done at trial

Prosecution case was entirely based on documentary evidence which after collection was lying in custody of NAB authorities and there was no question of tampering with the same

Allegation against accused with regard to his participation in the offence was yet to be proved by prosecution as such his further detention would not serve any useful purpose

Investigation had already been completed and accused was no more required for further investigation

Accused had made out a case of further inquiry within the meaning of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Acute sickness and ailment of accused could not be properly treated in jail premises which required specialized treatment and proper care was not possible in jail

Continuous detention of accused in jail would be detrimental and harmful to his life

Accused was entitled to bail on medical grounds also

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, forgery for purpose of cheating, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, common intention

Bail, refusal of

Medical ground

Scope

Prosecution case was that complainant had appointed the accused as care-taker of his business, during his medical treatment in hospital, but he defrauded the complainant and ccaused a loss of Rs. 250 million

Accused-petitioner sought bail on medical ground after dismissal of his earlier bail petition on merit

Accused contended that he was suffering from Hepatitis-B with very high ALT and his disease had increased in jail, where its normal treatment was not available

Medical report of accused was sought from Medical Officer, Jail on the basis of available record and test report of the accused-petitioner

Report submitted by jail authorities showed that hemoglobin level of the petitioner was 15.3 and all other pathological blood pictures were in normal range

Column of remarks in the pathology report of accused-petitioner was blank whereas ALT showed 561 beyond the prescribed normal range and treatment of Hepatitis-B was not possible in jail

Medical report did not show that accused-petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis-B, and being a carrier could transmit the disease to other prisoners or his health was deteriorating rapidly

Circumstances established that accused-petitioner at present stage was healthy and his disease could not be called contiguous, hazardous and a simple treatment was required, which had been given to the accused

Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau on the allegation of commission of corruption and corrupt practices who sought bail on medical grounds

Validity

Standing Medical Board gave its opinion and Senior Medical Officer Central Prison furnished his report, from where it could be safely concluded that petitioner was suffering from severe Dyspnoea and needed urgent treatment preferably in Intensive Care Unit

Facilities to meet such urgent specialized treatment of accused were lacking inside jail premises

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Disability of accused was confirmed by Medical Board by reporting that his right hand was totally amputated while left hand was deformed and functioning poorly

Accused also had mal-united / deformed left leg/left ankle

Accused was disable and infirm person who was unable to fire with any weapon

General allegation of firing was levelled against all nominated persons without describing injuries caused by them

Allegation of firing with pistol .30 bore had been levelled against accused but neither any crime empty was collected from the spot nor any such like weapon could be recovered at the instance of accused

Complainant had also given clean chit to accused by filing affidavit which document was still being owned by him

Case of accused was covered within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him for grant of bail

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Report submitted by Special Medical Board, duly constituted, had shown that one of accused persons was a crippled person, while nature of illness of other one was of serious nature

In view of the ailment of accused persons, being of serious nature, they were entitled to the relief sought under S.426, Cr.P.C.

Sentence awarded to accused persons by the Trial Court, were suspended till the final disposal of the appeal

Accused were released on bail on furnishing bonds, in circumstances.

Petitioners were accused facing trial before Accountability Court on the allegation of misuse of authority, cheating and causing loss to bank

Petitioners sought bail on the pleas of ailment and that of further inquiry

Validity

Petitioners did not append even a single document with petition wherefrom it could be gathered that they were patients of a disease which could not be curable through treatment in jail hospital

High Court observed that in cases of fraud, almost every accused had fallen ill after his arrest; in the eventuality of any serious disease, jail authorities could take steps for treatment of accused even outside jail premises

Petitioners failed to specify disease, which could be proved to be fatal for their lives

Petitioners were involved in commission of fraud which ultimately deprived National exchequer from billion of rupees and petitioners had failed to establish that their case fell within the ambit of further inquiry justifying exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court for grant of post arrest bail to them

Past conduct of petitioners rendered them disentitled for grant of bail and possibility of their fleeing away from country could not be ruled out

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.