SALIM UDDIN vs THE STATE
The applicant Salimuddin sought bail on the ground of sickness and unsoundness of mind while facing trial for offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Although the trial court previously rejected bail and declared the applicant fit, a medical specialist summoned by the court confirmed the applicant was of unsound mind and required treatment. With no objection from the Additional Advocate-General, the High Court granted bail under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to surety. Furthermore, the applicant challenged the trial court's order declaring him fit to defend himself. Finding the trial court's order contrary to sections 464, 465, and 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, set aside the impugned order and directed that the medical officer be examined and the accused given an opportunity to cross-examine him before deciding how the trial should proceed.
- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the accused?
- Can an order of the trial court regarding the fitness of an accused to stand trial be set aside under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it necessary to examine and cross-examine a medical expert regarding the mental state of an accused claimed to be of unsound mind?
- Section 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 464, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 466, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant Salimuddin is being tried for the offences under section 3/4 Prohibition (E.
0. H.) Order, 1979.
2. ' The bail is prayed on the sole ground of sickness of the applicant. The plea taken before the trial Court was that applicant is of unsound mind and sick. In support of the contentions certificate of Dr. Captain Akbar Khowja, Neuro Physician of Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre, Karachi, was produced before the trial Court. But learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected his bail and declared that Salimuddin is fit person to be tried. At the suggestion of the learned Additional Advocate-General, Dr. Akbar Khowja, was summoned and today he appeared alongwith history of the applicant. He has stated that applicant is unsound mind and needs treatment.
3. In these circumstances Mr. M. I. Memon, learned A. A.-G. Has no objection if applicant is granted bail. I admit the applicant to bail under section 466, Cr. P. C. And direct his father Hakeemuddin to furnish surety in the sum of Rs, 25,000 and P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Surety is further directed that he should take care of the applicant so that he may not be able to cause injury to himself or to any other person. However, applicant should appear before the trial Court.
4. The trial Court has passed an order on 21-3-1985 in which it has I been observed that applicant is fit person to defend himself. 'This order has also been challenged. In my view the order is contrary to the provisions of sections 464, 465 and 466 of Cr. P. C. And learned A. A.-G. Also submits that order of 21-3-1985 be set aside.
5. Mr. Lakho has relied on the cases reported in PLD 1963 Azad J & K 41 where it has been held that doctor is to be cross-examined on the point C of the unsound mind of the applicant. The case reported in PLD 1960 Pesh. 66 also supports the cont ention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. In these circumstances, in exercise of my power under section 561-A Cr. P. C., I set aside the order dated 21-3-1985 of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge and direct that before deciding the mode of trial, the doctor should be examined and accused be given chance to cross-examine him and then only the learned Judge should decide the matter as to how the case should proceed.
Cited by 9 cases
- Muhammad Hanif vs State etc. PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 412
- Muhammad Hanif vs The State etc 2023 LHC 76, 2024 PLJ Lahore 120, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 412
- Muhammad Hanif vs The State etc 2023 LHC 76, 2024 PLJ Lahore 120, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 412
- Malik WASIM AKBAR vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 1320
- Malik WASIM AKHTAR vs STATE PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 974
- SULTAN vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 1693
- MUHAMMAD SAEED WASEER vs D.F.C., SIALKOT and others 1998 P Cr. L J 1441
- ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE KLR1992 Criminal Cases 295
- SAID RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL and another 1990 P Cr. L J 210