Pakistan Case Law
1981 SCMR 686

TASNEEM KAUSAR vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR ETC.S

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1981 SCMR 686
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Appeal No. 1.1 of 1980
Date1980-02-10
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman
Authored byAslam Riaz Hussain
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for special leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the order of the Lahore High Court dated 14-11-1979, which granted post-arrest bail to Respondent No. 1 on the ground of ill-health. The petitioner contended that the ground of illness was not raised in earlier bail applications and that the respondent's medical conditions could be treated within the jail hospital. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail on medical grounds based on a Medical Board's report. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had prudently ordered an examination by a Board of three eminent doctors, whose report confirmed that the respondent suffered from Diabetes Mellitus and indications of tuberculosis. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and found no ground for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the High Court properly exercises its discretion in granting bail on medical grounds when supported by an independent Medical Board report?
  • Can bail granted on medical grounds by a High Court be interfered with where no perversity or improper exercise of discretion is shown?
cancellation of bailgrant of bailmedical groundsmedical boardill-healthdiscretion of court

ORDER

1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 14-11-1979 of the Lahore High Court granting bail to Muhammad Bashir Respondent No. 1 on the ground of ill-health. It was argued by Bashir, respondent petitioner that neither in his earlier bail application the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither in his earlier bail application before the High Court which was dismissed on merits, nor in his petition for special leave to appeal against the said order had the respondent mentioned the ground of illness. He urged further that the diseases mentioned in the Report submitted by the Medical Board which examined the respondent are such which could be treated in the Jail hospital.

2. We notice that with a view to obviate any criticism as to the correctness of the Medical Report on the physical condition of the accused/respondent, the High Court had ordered the accused/respondent to be examined by a Board of three doctors. The doctors constituting the Board are eminent and well-known doctors of Lahore. They have reported that the respondent is suffering from Diabetes Meilitus and that the Ex.Ray had revealed certain indicating that he was also suffering from tuberculosis. It features in cannot, therefore, be said that the High Court has not exercised its discretion properly. In this view of the matter we feel that this is not a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is, consequently, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 2 cases

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