MUHAMMAD ALI, J.---The petitioner Haji Muhammad Akram seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No,1118 dated 13.12.2015 registered under Sections 324, 336, 337 A(i), 379 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C") at Police Station Gulgasht, Multan. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner armed with hatchet along with his co-accused who were also armed with different weapons in furtherance of their common intention attacked on complainant's father, causing injuries on his person. The accused escaped from the scene of occurrence taking away a mobile Nokia SIM number 0300-9638747 and cash Rs,40,000/-.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. This is second bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court, the first application was dismissed on merits on 19.07.2016. The fresh grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail are the statutory ground and the medical ground. As far as the medical ground is concerned, the Medical Reports dated 10.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner is suffering from Ischemic Heart Disease and Diabetes Mellitus. The Ischemic Heart Disease' also known as `Coronary Artery Disease' , is a condition that affects the supply of blood to the heart. The 'Diabetes Mellitus', is commonly referred to as metabolic disorder in which the patient suffers from high blood sugar level over a prolonged period of time. The accused is suffering from common diseases which can conveniently be treated in jail hospital and these diseases are not life threatening which could entitle the petitioner for grant of bail on such ground.
Reference in this behalf is made on the case of Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another (1997 SCM R 1275). There has to be a clear stipulation in the Medical Report that treatment of the accused in jail is not possible at all or that his condition is such that his further detention is threatening to his life or he is suffering from some contagious or transmissible disease. In the absence of any of these conditions, bail on a medical ground cannot be granted. Reference in this behalf is also made to the case of Mian Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2016 SCM R 1536).
4. In order to consider whether the petitioner can be released on bail on the statutory ground, the order-sheet of the learned trial Court has been perused. The charge in this case was framed on 23.06.2016 and the case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence. The matter kept lingering on and the evidence was not recorded for one reason or the other. The petitioner has been seeking adjournments and it is found that the petitioner also contributed to the delay in decision of the case on account of his act or omission. The case was adjourned on 01.10.2016 because the counsel for the parties were not present, the prosecution witnesses were present on the said date. On 26.11.2016 and 05.01.2017 the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 19.01.2017 the petitioner and his co-accused requested for adjournment to engage a counsel. On the following date i,e, on 31.01.2017 fresh power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner and his co-accused was submitted by the learned counsel and the case was posted for 13.02.2017, with a clear indication that it would be the last opportunity to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses. In spite of this on the next date adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 15.02.2017 the case was adjourned on joint request of the counsel for the parties. On 21.02.2017 the witnesses were in attendance and the case was once more adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The witnesses on most of these dates were present but the defence did not proceed with the matter and the hearing was postponed on the asking of the petitioner or his counsel, this has resulted in causing delay in conclusion of the matter. In a case, where the adjournments are sought and the witnesses for the prosecution are not cross-examined for no justifiable reason, such conduct of the accused seeking adjournments can be taken note of and bail can be refused even after lapse of the statutory period. Reference in this behalf can be made to the cases of Baber Hussain v. The State and others (2016 SCM R 1538) and Abdur Rashid v. The State (1998 SCM R 897). In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot avail benefit of the statutory ground for grant of bail. Besides this, the record reveals that the father of the complainant after receiving the injuries remained hospitalized in Nishter Hospital, Multan from 13.12.2015 to 22.12.2015. The head injuries caused dysphasia (inability to speak) making him incapable to write and follow his day to day pursuits. These injuries on head of the injured arc attributed to the petitioner which were caused in a desperate manner. During the investigation offence under section 336, P.P.C. was added. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing repeated hatchet blows on head of the victim. The recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the petitioner which connects him with the commission of crime. The offences with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. No case for grant of bail is made out.
For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
Needless to mention that the observations made herein-above are only tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the extent of this order.