Mian MANZOOR AHMAD WATTO vs THE STATE

1. ' SAIDUZZMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The petitioner is facing trial before the Senior Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, in three different cases registered against him under F.I.R. No, 50 of 1998 dated 26-8-1998, F.I.R. No, 55 of 1998 dated 24-9-1998 and F.I.R. No, 20 of 1999 dated 2-2-1999. The first F.I.R. Relates to the offences alleged td have been committed in 1993. The 2nd F.I.R. Also relates to the offences alleged to have been committed in June 1993 while the 3rd F.I.R. Relates to the offences alleged to have been committed in 1998. All the three cases have been registered against the petitioner under section 109/409/420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. ' The petitioner applied for bail in all the three case which has been rejected by the learned trial Judge both on merits as well as on medical ground. While dealing with medical ground, the learned trial Judge observed "there is nothing on record to show that he is a heart patient and that his treatment in jail premises is not possible." After rejection of his bail applications in the above mentioned cases, the petitioner approached the High Court for grant of bail both on merits as well as on medical ground. By a detailed order, a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court dismissed the application of the petitioner on merits as well as on the medical ground. The petitioner has filed the above-mentioned three petitions for leave to appeal and at the hearing of the petitions the bail was pressed only on the medical ground.

3. ' The learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court while declining the bail to the petitioner in the above mentioned three cases on medical ground, observed as follows:-- "As far as the medical ground is concerned Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo remained Chief Minster after two Angio Plasty. His recent report dated 19-4-1999 of the Punjab Institute of Cardiology whereby he was medically examined under the direction of this Court is as under:

(1) No evidence for significant reversible myocardial ischemia.

(2) Adequate revascularization post PICA.

(3) When compared with the previous scan, dated July 31, 1997, there is no significant change.

4. ' The recent report demonstrates that his condition is not such that he be released on medical ground. There are many persons in the society who are suffering from heart ailment, diabetes etc. But are leading normal life, though on medicines. The stress and strain as argued are not unknown in the present day life. Reference in this regard is made to Muhammad Arshad v. The State (1997 SCM R 1275)."

5. ' When the above petitions came up for hearing before a bench of this Court at Lahore on 7-7-1999, the petitioner was referred for expert opinion on his condition to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology (AFIC), Rawalpindi for a detailed report as follows:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Before taking any final decision in these petitions, we would like to have the petitioner examined by the experts of A.F.I.C., Rawalpindi for a detailed report as to whether the continued detention of petitioner in jail is hazardous to his life and whether proper treatment of petitioner's illness is available in jail.

6. ' The petitioner be shifted to A.F.I.C., Rawalpindi within a day or two and he will remain there till the disposal of these petitions. Report is to be submitted within a week. After receipt of the report the cases may be fixed at Quetta for further orders.

7. ' The Advocate General, Punjab shall ensure compliance of this order through Government of Punjab at the expense of Government."

8. ' In compliance of the order of this Court dated 7-7-1999, following report has been received from A.F.I.C. On the condition of the petitioner:--- "Mr. Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo has been admitted in AFIC/NIHD Rawalpindi pursuant to orders of Supreme Court of Pakistan for Medical Examination and report. The subject patient is a known case of Ischemia Heart Disease, for which he underwent Angioplasty and Atherectomy in 1993 and 1994 respectively. He has been having regular medical checkups for this ailment. He also suffers from cervical spondeylosis which is confirmed on M.R.I. Scan.

9. ' On the day of admission to this Institute he gave history of experiencing suffocation and chest discomfort off and on often related to exertion. He had prior to that suffered about of upper respiratory tract infection and was having dry cough at the time of admission.

10. ' His clinical examination and laboratory and other non-invasive investigations were unremarkable.

11. ' In view of a definite coronary artery disease confirmed on coronary Angiographies (and history of intervention in form of Angioplasty and Atherectomy to L.A.D. System in 1993 and 1994) which runs a chronic, unpredictable and generally progressive course is known to be adversely affected by unaccustomed Mental and Physical stress. It is, therefore, recommended that subject prisoner be kept in an environment where he is not subjected to adverse mental or physical stress and has easy/quick access to expert medical/Cordiological help and treatment in case of any cardiac episodes.

12. ' Dated 22nd July, 1999 Sd/- Brig.

13. Adviser in Cardiology/ Dy. Comdt/ Dy Dir-I (Ashur Khan)

14. COUNTERSIGNED.

15. Maj Gen Commandant/Exec Dir (Masud-ur-Rehman Kiani)"

16. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioenr as well as the learned State prosecutor and the learned Advocate-General.

17. ' After going through the report of A.F.I.C. On the condition of the petitioner, we are of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner in the jail is hazardous to his life and that the treatment which he needs off and on for his ailment, cannot be provided within the jail premises. The principle for grant of bail on medical ground in a criminal case was laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Yousafullah Khan v. State (PLD 1995 SC 58), as follows:--- "From the above discussed position it is clear to us that the bail on medical ground can be granted under section 497, Cr.P.C. If the Court reaches the conclusion on the basis of medical report that the ailment with which the accused is suffering is such that it cannot by properly treated while in custody in Jail. The fact that the appellant is not suffering from any particular type of injury (as observed by the learned Judge that there was no fracture of bone in that case), would not be a ground either to refuse or grant the bail on medical ground. The correct criteria for grant of bail to an accused in a non-bailable case, on medical ground, in Sour view, would be that the sickness or ailment with which the accused is suffering is such that it cannot be properly treated within the premises of jail and that some specialized treatment is needed and his continued detention in Jail is likely to affect his capacity or is hazardous to his life."

18. ' Similar observations were made by another bench of this Court in the case of Zakhim Khan Masood v. State (1998 SCM R 1065). The learned counsel for the State as well as learned Advocate- General, however, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the release of the petitioner at this stage would obstruct the progress of the trial which is ripe for commencement. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has in fact refused to accept the charge-sheet in the case with the result that the trial is already delayed before the trial Court. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the State as well as Advocate-General, Punjab, that the ailment with which the petitioner is suffering is not such that his continued detention in the jail is hazardous to his life. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the State as well as learned Advocate-General, Punjab, that the State is prepared to provide such treatment as may be needed within the jail premises. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, we have converted these petitions into appeals and they are disposed of as follows.

19. As discussed earlier, the object of criminal prosecution is not to punish an under trial prisoner for the offence alleged against him. The object 'of criminal trial is that the accused is made to face the trial and answer the criminal charge against him. Since we have reached the conclusion after considering the medical report received from A.F.I.C. On the condition of the appellant that his continued detention in the jail is hazardous to his life and that the specialized C treatment needed by him, cannot be provided within the jail premises, we are inclined to admit the appellant to bail in all the above three cases. We, accordingly, admit the appellant to bail in the sum of Rs,20,00,000 (twenty lac only) in each case. He will be released on execution of bail bond in the sum of rupees two million in each case with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the condition that the appellant will appear before the trial Court to answer the charges in the above cases on 19th of this month when the cases are fixed for trial. The appellant shall continue to appear before the trial Court on each date of hearing fixed by the Court and shall not in any manner, obstruct the proceedings. In case the appellant absents himself without lawful excuse from the case or obstructs the progress of the trial in any manner, the bail granted to him will be liable to cancellation on an application filed by the prosecution. In order to ensure that the appellant does not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court until conclusion of the trial, we further direct that the appellant shall surrender all his travel documents to the trial Court which will be impounded and he will not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court except with prior permission of the trial Court. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.