SHAFIQ vs THE STATE through Additional Advocate- General Peshawar, and anothers
This matter involves two criminal miscellaneous applications: one for post-arrest bail by Shafique, and another for the cancellation of bail granted to Siraj, arising from F.I.R. No. 76 dated 19-9-2011 registered under sections 302, 307, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sakhakot. The core legal questions pertain to whether the accused Shafique is entitled to bail on medical grounds after being an absconder for over thirty years, and whether the bail granted to Siraj should be cancelled. The Peshawar High Court held that Shafique was not entitled to bail as there was no medical evidence showing his condition could not be treated in jail, and further noted his prolonged absconsion. Regarding Siraj, the court held that the criterion for cancelling bail requires showing that the bail-granting order was arbitrary, perverse, or obtained through fraud, which was not established. Consequently, both the bail application and the bail cancellation application were dismissed by the court.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds if the medical certificates do not show that he cannot be treated within the jail premises?
- What are the grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does long-term absconsion affect the entitlement of an accused person to the concession of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' FAZAL-I-HAQ ABBASI, J.---Through this single order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No.271 of 2011, moved by Shafique son of Fida Muhammad, for his release on bail and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11 of 2011, moved by Muhammad Naeem complainant, for cancellation of bail granted to Siraj accused/respondent, in case F.I.R. No. 76 dated 19-9-2011 under sections 302/307/ 324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sakhakot.
2. Shafique accused was charged for firing at Muhabat while Siraj was charged for giving kick blow on the mouth of Muhammad Naeem complainant, thereby causing injury to his teeth. Mohabat Khan succumbed to the injury on 23-9-1980.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that Shafique was attributed a single shot on the person of Muhabat and there is no allocation of repetition of fire shot. He further contended that the Doctor, who examined Mohabat in injured condition, opined that he was in a state of shock. Therefore, his statement recorded during investigation, is doubtful. He further submitted that it was a sudden fight. Accused/petitioner is aged about 75 years, having heart disease and was operated on 27-4- 2009, as such, being sick and infirm person, is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned A.A.-G. And counsel for the complainant argued that the accused/petitioner is charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. And there is no evidence that he cannot be treated in jail hospital. They further argued that the accused/petitioner remained absconder for 30/31 long years, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner argued that Siraj accused/respondent was given a specific role in the F.I.R. For causing injury to the teeth of complainant and he was wrongly granted bail by the court below.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent opposed the bail cancellation on the ground that according to F.I.R. Siraj was charged for causing injury on the teeth of complainant but no such injury was found.
7. Arguments heard and record perused.
8. Perusal of record shows that Shafique accused is charged for causing fire arm injury to Mohabat due to which he died on 23-9-1980. So far arguments of learned counsel for the accused/petitioner regarding his ailment is concerned, bail to an accused person, involved in a non-bailable offence, can be granted on medical ground if the sickness or ailment with which the accused is suffering is such that requires specialized treatment or that the accused cannot be properly treated within the jail premises and keeping him in jail would likely to be hazardous to his life. But in the present case, there is no such opinion on the record. There is nothing in the medical certificates, attached with the bail application, that accused cannot be treated in the jail or keeping him in jail, would be detrimental to his life.
' In this view of the matter, bail application moved by Shafique is dismissed.
' So far. The bail cancellation application against Siraj accused/respondent is concerned, he was attributed the role of giving kick blow on the mouth of complainant but according to the doctor two small lacerated wounds of 1/2 x 1/4 were found on the nose and left upper lip of the complainant.
No injury to teeth was found by the doctor. Even otherwise criterion for grant of bail and cancellation of bail is quite different. Once bail is granted by the court of competent jurisdiction the same cannot be cancelled unless the bail granting order is found arbitrary, fanciful, perverse or against the record or have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
' In this view of the matter, bail cancellation application moved against Siraj accused/respondent is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- M. IQBAL BUTT vs STATE & 3 others PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 741
- M. IQBAL BUTT Versus State 2012 PCrLJ 1350