Mufti ABDUL QUDDUS and others vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his appeal against conviction under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the sole ground of sickness. The core legal question was whether a convicted person suffering from illness is entitled to suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the appeal. The Lahore High Court held that since the medical opinion established the petitioner as a sick person, he was entitled to the concession of bail, following the principle that once a person is found sick or infirm, the court cannot quantify the sickness to deny bail under the relevant statutory provisions. The court accordingly suspended the sentence and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether a convict can be released on bail during the pendency of an appeal on the ground of sickness?
- Does a court have the authority to quantify the sickness and infirmity of a convict to deny bail?
- What is the effect of a medical board's opinion regarding the illness of a petitioner seeking suspension of sentence?
- Section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Mufti Abdul Quddus/petitioner, who, vide judgment dated 9-12-2003 handed down by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, was convicted alongwith other accused for offence under sections 316, P.P.C. And was sentenced to 14 years' R.I. In case F.I.R. No.452 registered at Police Station City Ahmadpur East on 30-11-2003, has sought suspension of sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of the appeal on the ground of sickness alone.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the opinion of Medical Board has argued that the petitioner qualifies as a sick person and, thus he should be admitted to bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not a sick person as he had been attending the Court throughout the trial. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while conceding that the petitioner was a sick person, submitted that instead of releasing the petitioner on bail, Hypertensive grade II and Ischemic main appeal should be fixed for hearing. Heart disease F.C.II."
As the petitioner is a sick person, I am not persuaded to deny the concession of bail to him. I am fortified in my view by placing reliance on Haji Mir Aftab v. The State 1979 SCM R 320, wherein it was held by the apex Court that once a person is found to be sick and infirm then his case would be covered by the second proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. And it would not be open to a Court to quantify his sickness and infirmity and the convict-petitioner/appellant in that case was admitted to, bail during the pendency of appeal. Thus, I suspend the sentence of the petitioner and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Bench.
Cited by 1 case
- BATI vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 1414