Pakistan Case Law
2009 PLJ SC 383

Sardar AMJAD ALI KHAN vs STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2009 PLJ SC 383
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Crl. P. No, 346 of 2008
Date2008-11-06
Judge(s)Abdul Hameed Dogar, Ejaz Yousaf, Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan
ResultBail allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application. The core legal question concerns whether an accused person suffering from a chronic liver disease who has languished in custody for a prolonged period without conclusion of the trial is entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the appellant. The Court held that where an accused has been in custody for over four years without the trial concluding and suffers from a chronic disease that cannot be properly treated within jail facilities, bail ought to be granted. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration coupled with the unavailability of specialized medical treatment in custody for a serious chronic illness constitutes sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused suffering from a chronic disease is entitled to post-arrest bail when treatment is not possible inside jail?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial justify the grant of bail?
  • Can a petition against the dismissal of bail be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
post-arrest bailmedical groundschronic liver diseaseprolonged incarcerationcriminal appeal

ORDER

Abdul Hameed Dogar, HCJ.--This petition is directed against order dated J8.9.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of High -Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur whereby bail application of petitioner was dismissed on the ground that parties have lost interest in the matter.

2. It is contended by Mr. Tariq Aziz, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was arrested in this case on 03.9.2004 from Rawalpindi and taken to Sukkur. He contended that petitioner is a clearing agent and has been involved in this case on the statement of co-accused, namely, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Ismail and Tahir Hussain who were apprehended during the search of the truck and charas weighing 6000 kilograms was recovered. He further contended that all the co-accused have been escaped from the police custody whereas petitioner is still in custody. According to learned counsel petitioner is suffering from chronic liver disease (HCV+ VE) with normal Ultrasound of abdomen, SGPT increase which the PCR HCV virus detected and can be treated with specific inter feron therapy (06 months), as disease has long chronic course, one cannot predict the course. He referred to the report of Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison-I, Sukkur wherein it is mentioned that treatment is only inter feron therapy and anti viral during which is not possible in jail due to lack of fund. He contended that learned High Court has not considered the health condition and medical report of petitioner though mentioned in the order of the learned trial Court.

3. On the other hand Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Addl. AG Sindh controverted above contentions and contended that petitioner is suffering from the disease which can be cured inside the jail.

4. We have given anxious thought to the contentions raised at the bar and are of the opinion that petitioner is in custody for more than four years and trial has not been concluded. The petitioner is suffering from a Chronic disease which cannot be treated while keeping him in custody.

Accordingly, petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. Appellant Sardar Amjad Ali Khan is granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.