1. Exemption granted.
2. Since the application for bail is to be heard it will, of course, be heard on merits as well as with regard to age of the accused.
3. This bail application was ordered to be heard alongwith some other bail applications which cannot b., heard today as the matter with regard to the age of the applicant/accused has been ordered to be referred to a Medical Board, the hearing of the same may be delayed. Mr. S. Madad Ally Shah, Advocate for the applicant, Bachal had made a plea for urgent hearing of, this bail application which is accordingly separated out from the rest of the applications and is being heard today.
Heard Mr. S. Madad Ally Shah, Advocate for the applicant Bachal, Mr. Allahdino Memon, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. A. A. Muhammad Ally, A. A.-G. For the State.
The applicant alongwith 8 other accused is being tried for the murder of Muhammad Ilyas. At the present stage no evidence has been recorded and the learned counsel have argued on the basis of the F. I. R., the state--ments of witnesses before Police and the report of Medical Officer who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body.
Besides, the complainant, Haji Muhammad Sulleman there are three other alleged eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Urs, Jani and Obhayo. From the aforesaid material available the prosecution case at this stage appears to be that the accused/applicant led the rest of the accused to the scene of offence. He was armed with a hatchet. His son Achar at the instigation is stated to have fired at the deceased and after deceased had fallen, the other accused armed with hatchets and Lathis are stated to have given blows to hire and Muhammad Urs.
Mr. S. Madad Ally Shah, the learned counsel for the applicant for the purposes of the bail application has stressed the point that the applicant is aged about 80 years and there is Medical Certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Sanghar to the effect that besides being 80 years old the applicant suffers from hypertension and weak eye-sight. However, in certificate the doctor has volunteered the opinion that the stay of the accused/applicant in jail would not be detrimental to his life. This application has been made under proviso to 497(1), Cr. P. C. Which inter alia is to the effect that the Court may direct that any sick or infirm person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life may be released on bail. The learned counsel has relied upon a number of decisions of the superior Courts includ--ing those of Supreme Court of Pakistan to support his contention that the age of the accused has to be considered specially when it is above 70 years and over. On the merits he has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant caused any fatal blow to the deceased which resulted in his death. He has further pointed out that of the four alleged eye-witnesses, Jani and Obhayo to their own admission arrived at the scene of offence after the injuries had been inflicted. With regard to Muhammad Urs and the complainant, he has pointed out that all they state is that after the principal accused namely Achar bad fired gun shot at the deceased, the other accused armed with hatchets and Lathis inflicted injuries on him. He has also referred to the certificate of the Medical Officer who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body to show that there were four incised injuries on the dead body, three on the head and the 4th on the left ear. He has further argued that the aforesaid two eye-witnesses have not specifically stated that the applicant caused any of those injuries on the head and the ear. It is, therefore his further argument that even though vicarious liability under section 149, P. P. C. Has been alleged it is yet a question for further inquiry as to the actual part played by the accused/applicant in the alleged murder.
The merits of the case at this preliminary stage have been taken into consideration to the extent indicated only because the authorities cited by the learned counsel are with regard to individual cases and the facts of each of such cases are different. It is, therefore, considered necessary not only to go by the matter with regard to age of the accused /applicant. At the age of 80 years, a person can well be said to be somewhat infirm. But it is necessary to discuss the merits of the case as indicated by the material available with the prosecution at this stage as it has been argued by Mr. Allahdino, the learned counsel for the complainant that the mere state--ment of age of an accused person could not ipso facto entitle him to the grant of facility of enlargement on bail.
In view of the circumstances stated above it is felt that not only there is indication about age and the illness on the part of t e-accused/applicant, namely that he is suffering from hypertension but even on the merits one is persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that in the absence of specific role attributed to the applicant it would be a case for further inquiry. Mr. A. A.
Muhammad Ally the learned A. A.-G. Has very fairly conceded that this is a case for grant of bail and has not opposed the instant applica--tion. Before I end this order I may here observe that several authorities of the Superior Courts have been cited by Mr. Allahdino, the learned counsel for the complainant but as already stated since in such cases the grant of bail is to be considered on the consideration of circumstances of the same B with all due respect it is not considered necessary by me to discuss the aforesaid authorities. The accused/applicant, Bachal is directed to be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000 and P. R. Bond, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 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.