MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed to be infirm and asserted a plea of alibi, was entitled to bail despite being named in the First Information Report with a specific role of causing injury to the deceased. The Court examined the medical report from the Central Jail, Rawalpindi, and found no evidence that the petitioner could not be adequately treated within the prison facility. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was attributed a specific injury on the deceased's body. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for bail, as the medical condition did not warrant release and the specific role attributed to him precluded the conclusion that the case required further inquiry. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that bail on medical grounds requires proof that the necessary treatment cannot be provided while in custody.
- Does a medical report indicating illness automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can a plea of alibi be considered at the bail stage if it was not raised before the trial court?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the medical report fails to demonstrate that the required treatment cannot be provided within the jail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 90 under sections 302 and 147/149, P.P.C., dated 3'1-5-1999 registered at Police Station Jatli District Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner alongwith Muhammad Iqbal and Sikandar armed with kalashnikovs whereas Akhtar and Ajab Hussain and Khan Muhammad armed with .222 rifle and .7 mm rifle committed the murder of Muhammad Amin by firing at him. The petitioner applied for bail which relief was declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujjar Khan, vide order, dated 4-11-1999. Hence the instant petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused/petitioner is an infirm person, as such he is entitled to the relief sought by him and places reliance upon the report of the Medical Officer Central Jail, Rawalpindi, that on the ground of sickness, relief of bail has been granted and placed reliance upon Zakhim Khan Masood v. The State 1998 SCMR 1065, Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo v. The State 2000 SCMR 107, The State v. Sarzaman and another 1996 PCr.LJ 1432 and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 166, that presence of the petitioner on the spot is also not proved from the investigation so far conducted and that is why he has been declared innocent by the Investigation Agency without placing his name in Column No. 2 of report under section 173, Cr.P.C., that plea of alibi propounded by the petitioner can be looked into even at bail stage and placed reliance upon Malik Muhammad Saleheen and others v. Arshad Siddiq and 2 others 1997 SCMR 1829 and Khalid Javed Gillan v. The State 1978 SCMR 256, that although petitioner has been attributed an injury on the person of the deceased, yet that is not fatal injury as the fatal injury has been attributed to Muhammad Iqbal, that all these facts make the case open for further inquiry, as such petition be accepted.
5. Conversely, the bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State. He submits that, the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R., that a specific role of causing injury to the deceased has been attributed to him, that he is being treated in the jail in accordance with law and there is no report to the effect that he cannot be treated inside the jail. So far as plea of alibi is concerned, he submits that the said plea was not raised before the trial Court, as such this cannot be looked into at this stage.
6. The present petitioner alongwith four others has been charged for committing murder of Muhammad Amin. The petitioner has been assigned a role of causing injury on the left flank of the deceased whereas his co- accused Muhammad lqbal and Sikandar have been attributed the role of causing injury on the neck of the deceased. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is an infirm person. It is on the basis of this assertion that he was got medically examined and a report to the effect has been sought from the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Rawalpindi, which also does not come to his rescue as the said report does not show that he cannot be treated inside the jail.
7. Since the petitioner has been attributed a specific role of causing injury on the left flank of the deceased and is also not an infirm and sickle person, so he is not entitled to the relief of bail. There is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-339/L Bail refused.
Cited by 1 case
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 973