' FAISAL ARAB, J.-At the time of filing of this bail application applicant's Vakalatnama was not duly attested by the hospital where the applicant is hospitalized. However, duly attested Vakalatnama has now been filed. The office objection therefore stands complied with.
2. The applicant is implicated in Crime No. 18 of 2004 registered with Police Station Baldia, Hyderabad under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. His bail application on merits was dismissed. The present bail application has been moved purely on medical grounds as the applicant is said to be suffering from serious heart ailment and other diseases.
3. On account of his ill health, the applicant had been on parole from the Government of Sindh and has continuously been hospitalized for his treatment. Since 31-3-2006. The applicant is in National Medical Centre and on account of his being on parole had to remain in the charge of District Police Officer, Hyderabad. His parole expires on 26-5-2007.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on the directions of the trial Court, Government of Sindh constituted a Medical Board comprising of six senior doctors who examined the applicant on 15-2-2007. The Medical Board in its report has opined that the applicant is suffering from Ishemic Heart Disease and unstable angina. It is stated in the report that his Coronary Angiography has revealed severe three-vessel disease and severe L.V. Dysfunction. The Medical Board recommended "Coronary Artery By-pass Grafting" (CABG). However, till his heart surgery is performed, the applicant was advised hospitalization for symptomatic treatment of his ailment.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court to two reports dated 16-1-2007 and 7-5-2007 of the hospital where the applicant is hospitalized. In these reports it is stated that applicant's condition has not improved since November-December, 2006 and on account of complexity of appellant's disease, the cardiovascular, neurological and . Spinal surgeons have advised the appellant to seek his cardiac treatment either at National Health Care Hospital in Singapore of in the United States.
6. Learned State counsel' has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant. He argued that the applicant is already hospitalized in a renowned hospital and getting best medical treatment and therefore there is no need to grant him bail on medical grounds. He further argued that the applicant being on parole should not be granted bail unless he is sent to jail and from there he should again move application to the trial Court for bail on medical ground. He however concedes that 26-5-2007 is the last day of parole whereafter the applicant would be taken to jail.
7. With regard to the argument that the applicant is already receiving medical treatment in a renowned hospital, uridisputedly the applicant is receiving only symptomatic treatment of his serious cardiac condition and other ailments. The recommended surgery for cure of his heart ailment is yet to be performed as had been advised by the Medical Board. As per the advice of the hospital doctors also, the eomplexity of applicant's disease requires his cardiac treatment to be performed abroad either at National Health Care Hospital in Singapore or in the United States.
8. The trial Court in its order also has acknowledged the gravity of appellant's health and the DDA had also given his no objection to the grant of bail on medical grounds before the trial Court yet bail was denied only for the reason that the applicant is hospitalized and getting medical treatment and therefore there is no imminent danger to his health or life. One other reason for denying the applicant bail on medical grounds was that the applicant should first be sent to jail from hospital and only then he would be entitled to move bail application.
9.. In view precarious state of health of the applicant, admitted in a hospital and suffering from sever cardiac disease, cannot be sent to jail just to become entitled for bail on medical grounds.
This does not appeal to reason. On the contrary it would jeopardize applicant's present state of health and may put his life at risk. Furthermore, if at all the applicant were to seek his medical treatment abroad, as has been recommended by the doctors, then he has to first seek visa for which he has to be on bail. Without the applicant being enlarged on bail, he cannot even apply for visa as no country would grant visa to a person who is in jail. In the case cited by applicant's counsel which is reported in 2000 SCM R 107 the Honourable Supreme Court while considering grant of bail on medical grounds held "The correct criteria for grant of bail to an accused in a non- bailable case, on medical ground, in our 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".
10. The fact that applicant is suffering from severe cardiac disease and has been advised surgery abroad and the fact that parole which was granted to him on medical grounds expired on 26.-5- 2007, his life cannot be put at risk. In the circumstances ? Case for grant of bail on medical grounds is made out.
11. Vide short order dated 25-5-2007 passed by this Court, the. Applicant was granted bail on medical grounds upon his furnishing surety in a sum of Rs.300,000. The above are the reasons for the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.