ZARIN KHAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner, charged with double murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, sought bail on the grounds of infirmity pursuant to the second proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. His bail applications were previously dismissed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that medical reports confirming his chronic Asthmatic Bronchitis and pulmonary tuberculosis qualified him as an infirm person entitled to bail. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, including reports from a private practitioner, the jail doctor, and a Medical Board. The Court held that while the petitioner suffered from chronic ailments, the medical evidence did not establish that his condition rendered him an 'infirm person' within the meaning of the statute, as he could receive adequate treatment within the jail system. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the jail authorities are responsible for providing necessary specialized treatment to the petitioner, and dismissed the petition.
- Does a diagnosis of chronic Asthmatic Bronchitis and pulmonary tuberculosis automatically qualify an accused as an infirm person under the second proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on medical grounds if the medical evidence indicates that their condition can be treated within the jail hospital?
- What is the responsibility of jail authorities regarding an accused who requires specialized medical treatment while in custody?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-The petitioner, who is at present in judicial custody, is charged under section 302/307/34, P. P. C, for the double murders of Gul Muhammad and Sher Sultan and for having attempted on the life of complainant Wahid Gul. In order to secure bail for himself on the ground of infirmity within the meaning of the second proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C., he first applied to the Sessions Judge but his application was dismissed. Thereafter he made an application to the High Court but his application was dismissed vide the impugned order.
2. ' We have heard Mr. A. G. Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the report of the Registry this petition is barred by seven days. But we condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the petition on merits.
3. ' The learned counsel contended that the petitioner was indeed an infirm person within the meaning of the second proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C.. And consequently the High Court was in error not to release him on bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on three medical reports
(1) A report of one Doctor Murad a Private Practitioner ;
(2) A report of the Jail Doctor and
(3) A report of the Medical Board which had examined the petitioner for his ailment.
4. Now it is true that in all the said reports the petitioner is said to suffering from Asthmatic Bronchitis of a chronic type with left pulmonary T. B. But the learned Judge in the High Court felt satisfied that the said illness was not of the type which would render the petitioner an infirm person within the meaning of the second proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C., and consequently dismissed his petition observing that he could be satisfactorily treated in jail hospital.
5. ' We are quite inclined to agree with the said finding recorded in the High Court. It is true that according to the report of the private doctor o the petitioner, namely, Doctor Muhammad Murad he remained under hi treatment for the last one year. But even Doctor Murad does not claim that during the said period the petitioner had remained with him as an indoor patient. The opinion of the Jail doctor no doubt is that the petitioner is in need of the treatment of a Specialist. But according to t Medical Board of three eminent doctors all that the petitioner needs is proper treatment irrespective of the fact whether he is inside or outside the jail. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to contend that the order passed by the learned Judge in the High Court was perverse or unreasonable.
6. ' This petition is, therefore, dismissed. We however, observe that if the petitioner is in need of any specialized treatment it would be the burden of the jail authorities to provide the same subject of course to the jail rules relating to that subject.
Cited by 5 cases
- Abdul Khalique vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 323
- Dr. ASIM HUSSAIN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad 2018 YLRN 154
- ALLAH RAKHIA vs THE STATE K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 573
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE 1986 P Cr. L J 102
- QADIR BUX Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 674