This criminal petition arose from a challenge to a Lahore High Court order that cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail despite a medical report and DNA analysis suggesting that the alleged offense had not occurred. The Supreme Court observed that the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report and the subsequent final medical opinion dated July 27, 2015, indicated that no act of sodomy was committed. Furthermore, the petitioner had already remained incarcerated for approximately nine months. The Court held that the High Court erred in its decision, as the medical evidence rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the original bail-granting order. The key principle reaffirmed is that where medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's allegations, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---C.M.A. No, 51-L of 2016. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the criminal petition is condoned.
Crl. P. No, 118-L of 2016
2. Petitioner calls in question the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby petition for cancellation of bail filed by respondent No,2/complainant was allowed and the order dated 02.09.2015 granting bail to the petitioner or passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian was set aside.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Prosecutor General and having gone through the material available on record as well as the impugned order, it has been observed that sample for DNA test was sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency on 26.01.2015 and after receipt of report dated 03.06.2015, the doctor in his final opinion dated 27.07.2015 has opined, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Prosecutor General, that no act of sodomy was committed in this case. We have further noted that petitioner remained behind the bars for about nine months. In this view of the matter, we find that the learned High Court has fallen in error in setting aside the bail granting order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in favour of the petitioner as the case of the petitioner in the light of the opinion of the doctor calls for further enquiry.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. The impugned order of the learned High Court dated 26.11.2015 is set aside and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 02.09.2015 granting bail to the petitioner is restored.