RAMZAN vs THE STATE
This bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Ramzan, whose previous bail application had been rejected by the High Court of Sindh due to his specific role in the alleged robbery and the recovery of the robbed vehicle from his house. The prosecution case involved the forcible taking of a Coaster vehicle, physical assault, and theft under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. In the instant application, the applicant sought bail primarily on medical grounds, producing medical reports showing he suffered from bleeding peptic ulcer, depression, hiatus hernia, and an old compression fracture. The core legal question was whether the applicant's medical condition qualified him as a 'sick person' under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the medical record demonstrated that further detention would aggravate the applicant's health conditions, thereby bringing his case within the statutory exception. The application was allowed, and bail was granted.
- Can a successive bail application be maintained on fresh medical grounds that were not raised in the previous rejected bail application?
- Whether ailments such as a bleeding peptic ulcer, depression, hiatus hernia, and old compression fracture qualify an accused as a 'sick person' under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the likelihood of aggravation of an accused's medical condition during detention justify the grant of bail under the statutory exceptions of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 118, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-(f)(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 124-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Ramzan, his bail application was rejected by the undersigned while sitting in the Circuit Court at Hyderabad by order dated 25-11-2008 while allowing the bail applications of the co-accused Saddar, Ameer Ali, Mumtaz Ali, Abdul Samad, Abdul Majeed, Dhani Bux, 'Rehmatullah, Ismail and Murad, rejected bail application of the present applicant Ramzan on the grounds that he was shown to have played a specific role in the alleged incident further the vehicle allegedly robbed was found parked in front of his house. This bail application is being moved along with others, but mainly on medical grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant during the arguments.
2. ' Brief facts of the case being that the complainant Bashir Ahmed had lodged F.I.R. At Police Station Chachro District Tharparkar, stating therein that the accused had forcibly taken away their Coaster due to rivalry on bus route and had also used arms and beaten the complainant and taken away Rs,4500 along with the Coaster. They had also torn the photographs of Mohtrama Benazir Bhutto and the President Asif Ali Zardari and driven away the Coaster which was recovered from in front of the house of the applicant/accused hence the case under sections 147, 118, 149, 427, 504, 337-(f)(i) and section 124-A, P.P.C. And S.17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
3. Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the applicant/accused.
4. ' Learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that it was due to erroneous narration of facts by the learned counsel who had appeared at Hyderabad, that the Court was not properly assisted and resulted in rejection of the bail application, learned counsel has also argued that the medical examination of the applicant would show that he is suffering from bleeding peptic ulcer, depression, hiatus hernia, old compression fracture, which ailments would have serious consequences on the life of the applicant/accused considering that the senior Doctors had examined and issued the report which is attached as annexure-D, hence the case of the applicant/accused would also fall under the exceptions of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicant/accused relied upon the case 1999 PCr.LJ 614 (Kar), Amir Mehmood v. The State, 1999 PCr.LJ 616 (Pesh), Mst. Mastari v. Noor Nawaz Noor Niaz, 1999 M LD 2246 (Kar.), Abdul Rahman and 4 others v. The State.
5. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case law cited above and medical report/ opinion attached with the application regarding ailments suffered by the applicant/accused to show that he is a sick person, these grounds were not raised at the time of previous bail application was moved and rejected, but considering the medical record produced and the case law cited above, I have found that the case of the applicant/accused being sick person is covered by the exception to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Where further detention would only tend to aggravate his condition. Bail is accordingly allowed, and the applicant/accused be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety for an amount of Rs,50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.