' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the applicant/accused Dr. Abdullah Mehmood and his son co-accused Subhan had been granted bail by this Court on merits vide order dated 4-10-2002 passed in Criminal Bail Application No,1236 of 2002. Thereafter, both the accused remained absent before the learned trial Court since 22-12-2003 and it was only on 6-4-2005 that the applicant/accused who was arrested in some other case, was brought before the learned trial Court in the present case viz.. F.I.R. No,169 of 2002 of Police Station Mehmoodabad, Karachi under section 302/34, P.P.C. Co-accused Subhan is still absconding. An application for bail after arrest was filed before the learned trial Court by the applicant/accused which was dismissed vide the impugned order and hence this bail application.
2. In support of the case, Mr. M.M. Jilani has firstly laid stress on the medical condition of the applicant/accused as according to the report of the Medical Board, he is a known case of hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure which carries a risk of stroke and acute coronary syndrome. Hence per learned counsel, his continued detention in prison would be detrimental to his health as in case of an emergency due to a stroke etc., no facilities are available in the prison hospital to cater for the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmed PLD 1966 SC 658, Missal Muhammad v. The State 1986 SCMR 847, Tasneem Kasuser v. Muhammad Bashir 1981 SCMR 686, Abbas v. The State 2000 SCMR 212, Nawazishullah v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 2275, Sardar Abdul Hamid v. Momin Khan PLD 1984 Pesh. 199 and Tariq Nazeer v. The State 2003 YLR 2550.
3. Insofar as the abscondence of the applicant/accused is concerned, it is submitted that after grant of bail from this Court on 4-10-2002, he was regularly attending the learned trial Court.
However, when he had gone to his home town in the Punjab due to a death in his family he had suffered a back injury due to which he was confined to bed. Accordingly, the applicant/accused had informed his counsel and also sent a medical certificate with the instructions to request the learned trial Court to condone his absence. However, his counsel failed to do the needful, with the result that he was declared as an absconder.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Complainant has opposed the bail plea on the ground that according to the medical certificate,. The applicant/accused only suffers from high blood pressure which is not such a disease as could be detrimental to his health during his confinement in prison. Insofar as the excuse put forward regarding his- abscondence, per learned counsel, this again is insufficient as the applicant/accused has chosen to stay away from the trial for nearly 2 years and has only been brought before learned trial Court after he was arrested in another case in Karachi. Furthermore, per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is charged with the double murder of two innocent persons and if he were granted bail he would certainly abscond again which is further fortified from the fact that his son who is a co-accused in the case is still an absconder. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Muhammad Arshad v. The State 1997 SCMR 1275, Sher Ali v. The State 1998 SCMR 190, Daulat Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 105, Abdul Majid v. The State 2003 MLD 194, Ghulam Raza v. Khuda Bux 2005 SCMR 1904, Pervez v. The State 2005 YLR 37 and Rahm Sher v. Malika 2005 PCr.LJ 288.
5. Learned State Counsel has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the Complainant and prayed that this bail application be dismissed.
6. I have heard all the learned counsel. It would be seen that insofar as the medical ground is concerned, the law is settled right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan whereby this is only considered when it can be established that the continued detention of the accused in prison would be detrimental to his health: In other words that the accused was suffering from a disease which could not be treated or managed by the prison doctor. According to the report of the Medical Board, the applicant/accused is a known case of hypertension. He complains of backache, pain on the left side of his chest, and uncontrolled blood pressure. He has history of a fall for which he remained hospitalized about one year back. His blood pressure and ECG was normal but his spinal X-ray showed a straightening. There was no end organ damage but he has pressure over the spinal cord as a result of past trauma. In this circumstances it has been opined by the Board that the risk of a stroke or acute coronary syndrome as a result of high blood pressure would be the same whether he was behind the bars or not, as this depends on the control of his blood pressure.
Finally, a neuro surgical opinion is recommended for his spinal cord problem. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the disease of high blood pressure which is a very common one can easily be managed by the applicant/accused himself with the assistance of the prison doctor and hence at this stage it cannot be said that this continued detention in prison is detrimental or otherwise would proof fatal to his health. Insofar as his spinal problems are concerned, against, per the applicant/accused himself he had sustained an injury in that area some time ago for which he remained hospitalized. However, he seems to have recovered from such injury as on each date of hearing he has been produced from Jail and was seen walking normally. In the circumstances, I am, of the opinion that no case for bail is made out on the ground of illness.
7. Insofar as the abscondence of the accused is concerned, it is again very well-settled that this disentitles him to some of the rights normally available in the procedural as well as substantive law. In the present case, it would be seen that after grant of bail by this Court on 4-10-2002 the accused did not attend the learned trial Court since 22-12-2003 without any intimation and it was only on 6-4-2005 that he was produced before that forum when he was arrested in some other case. Co-accused Subhan Hameed who is the son of the applicant/accused is still an absconder.
The excuse put forward is that due to his back injury he remained hospitalized in the Punjab and although he had instructed his counsel to inform the learned trial Court about this mishap, the needful was not done. In my opinion, this is hardly any explanation for the applicant/accused's absence/abscondence. It does not in spite any confidence at all, particularly as the co-accused is still an absconder.
8. For all the, foregoing reasons this bail application is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall decide the main case within a period of three months from today. So also the applicant/accused shall be examined by the Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery, Civil Hospital, Karachi who shall B thereafter file his report as regards his spinal cord problems before this Court. To be put up when such report is available.