BAOZIRA Versus SAID FAROOQ

1. It is a case that accused-respondent is directly charged for the murder of his wife by no less a person of his father who found him a dagger in his hand and having given dagger blows to the deceased that as a result she sustained fatal injuries and died. The occurrence was further stated to have been witnessed by Sher Akbar son of the accused. Accused-respondent was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda who first constituted a Medical Board to examine the accused for his epileptical disease that a report, dated 29-2-1991 was submitted tendering an opinion that the accused might suffer from epilepsy but since there was needed further investigation hence there to be constituted a Special Medical Board for the purpose. The Special Medical Board constituted later on submitted its report, dated 20-5-1991 that after examination and keeping in view the report of the visiting psychiatrists the Board was of the opinion that Said Farooq was probably suffering from epilepsy. They further stated that he committed the crime when he was psychiatrically ill. One cannot comprehend that how did they form such an opinion when even earlier they did not hold a definite opinion and were to say that the accused-respondent probably suffers from epilepsy. They did not stop there and further recommended to the Court that Said Farooq be released on bail but his release should be made conditional of the fact that his relatives will bring him for regular check up as outdoor patient, The learned Additional Sessions Judge has accordingly believed the medical report and released the accused on bail without going into the merits of the case. It is hereby observed that accused-respondent present in Court appears to be all right m case he is an epilepsy patient and dangerous to the extent to kill his wife it will not be otherwise advisable to release him on bail but rather he should be kept in Jail/Medal Hospital for treatment. Further soon after his release he prevailed up the prosecution witnesses as his minor son was made to give a different statements .under section 164, Cr.P.C. Provisions of sections 466 and 467, Cr.P.C. also pertain to the inquiry/trial when the Court has to ascertain at his end that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. Unfortunately, the report of the medical board was not found above board and definite in its terms. Pending his trial accused-respondent does not make out a case for his release on bail and consequently his bail is hereby cancelled and he is given into police custody to be sent to jail.

2. N.H.Q./1542/P

3. Bail cancelled.