NASRULLAH Versus THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 256, registered at Police Station Kassoki, District Hafizabad, concerning offences under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of murder and related offences, sought bail on grounds of old age and infirmity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on his age and alleged sickness. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude, specifically attributing a role to the petitioner, which was corroborated by eye-witness accounts, medical evidence, and the recovery of a weapon. Regarding the petitioner's age, the Court held that mere old age does not per se entitle an accused to bail. Furthermore, the Court found no material evidence supporting the claim of serious illness. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that while the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows for bail consideration based on infirmity, mere old age alone is insufficient to grant relief without further substantiation.
- Does mere old age of an accused person per se entitle him to the grant of bail?
- Is an accused person entitled to bail on the ground of sickness if no material evidence of the ailment is placed before the court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Nasrullah petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.256 registered at Police Station Kassoki, District Hafizabad on 1‑9‑1999 for offences under sections 302/324/148/149, P. P. C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein the present petitioner had not only been nominated as one of the perpetrators of the offences in question but a definite role had been attributed to the petitioner therein. The allegation levelled in the F.I.R. was that he had raised a Lalkara and had then opened the attack while causing a fire‑arm injury on the person of Irshad deceased. The eye‑witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. including three injured victims, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the offences alleged against him. Prima facie the medical evidence lends support to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. The petitioner also apparently stands connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. During the investigation a gun had been recovered from the petitioner's custody. After having become convinced of the guilt of the petitioner the local police has already submitted a challan against him before the Court of competent jurisdiction. For all these reasons prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the involvement of the petitioner in the offences allegedly committed by him.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an old and infirm person and also that he is seriously sick and is presently admitted to jail hospital. In this context it has been noticed by this Court that it had been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad in his order, dated 19‑2‑2000 that the present petitioner was, according to the police record, aged about 60 years. Before this Court today the learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that according to the National Identity Card of the petitioner his age comes to about 72 years and, therefore, he can be termed as an infirm person within the purview of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, been controverted by the learned counsel for the‑ complainant who has made a reference to the cases of Muhammad Hussain v. State 1977 SCMR 52 and Gul Ahmed v. Masan Khan and others 1977 SCMR 27 wherein it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that mere old age of an accused person does not per se entitle him to bail on that score alone.
4. As regards the alleged sickness of the petitioner it has been noticed by this Court that no material has been placed before‑this Court regarding any ailment of the petitioner or in respect of his being seriously unwell at present. Even otherwise such a ground had not been taken before the learned trial Court. The petitioner may approach the learned trial Court in the first instance on such a ground, if so advised.
5. For what has been discussed above this petition is hereby dismissed.