Abdullah Khan respondent is personally present. He has put in an application for adjournment on the ground that his counsel Sh. Khuda Bakhsh is busy in connection with the marriage of his son and is not able to appear. Mr. Mahmood Aslam Pirzada, who has been appearing in this matter for the respondent, has put in appearance and states that the brief was taken away from him last night by the son of the respondent. He further submits that the respondent had told him this morning outside the Court that he did not want him to appear. Mr. Pirzada states that he has appeared only to state that he is no longer required by his client to appear in this case.
2. The respondent is one of the accused in a murder case and was one of the three persons who are said to have fired at the deceased. He was granted bail by Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, by order dated 30th of July 1969, on medical grounds. The Medical Superintendent of B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, was asked to examine the respondent and he gave an opinion by memo. No. 5992 dated 29th of July 1969, that the respondent was a case of suspected gastric ulcer but not a confirmed one. He further opined that there were no positive findings to ascertain the seriousness of the disease. The doctor also found that on palpation i.e. by touching the abdomen was not found tender and was normal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in view of this opinion granted bail to the respondent on the ground that according to the Medical Superintendent the history and the radiological appearance was suggestive of gastric ulcer. To quote his own words, "this disease is enough to vindicate the release of the petitioner on bail."
3. The present application for cancellation of bail which was filed on the ground that the respondent was not suffering from any ailment, came up for hearing before Mushtaq Hussain Munir, J. on 7th of October 1969, who issued notice. The case came up before M. A. Zullah, J. on 23rd of October 1969, and a submission w^s made by Mr. A. R. Tayyib, the learned counsel for the petitioner* that the respondent was in good health but in order to avpid appearance in Court had got himself admitted in B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur. The learned Judge directed Mr. Tayyib to go to the hospital personally and see for himself whether the respondent was ailing or not. On return from the hospital, Mr. Tayyib made a statement that the Medical Superintendent did not appear to. be aware of the admission of any such patient. The reply received from the various wards of the hospital in response to the queries made by the Medical Superintendent did not reveal that any patient of the description of the respondent had been admitted. The counsel made personal enquiries and found that in the male medical ward a person of the name and description of the respondent had been admitted on 12th of October 1969, at serial No. 643 for some disease which was connected with pelpic ulcer. The learned counsel saw.the bed head ticket which showed that the patient had gone out of the hospital on 18th of October 1969, at 6-30 p.m. leaving a written note in Urdu on the bed head ticket to the following effect :-- "I am going on leave to my house for two days and will come back on Tuesday."
On the same day the son of the petitioner Allah Bakhsh who was present outside the Court was called and his statement was recorded. He expressed ignorance as to the whereabouts of his father but stated that his father was under treatment at Multan and living in a house on the Mall Road, He further stated that bis father was earlier admitted ip the B. V. Hospital and as fii$ condition did not improve he went to Multan. The case was adjourned to a further date at the request of Mr. Pirzada who was then the counsel for the respondent.
4. The case again came up on 28th of November 1969, before Muhammad Afzal Khan, J. who directed that a Board of three Professors from the Nishter Medical College be constituted to examine the respondent. The case again came up before my brother Muhammad Iqbal, J. on 26th of January 1970. On this day, the respondent was again absent. His lordship directed that the respondent shall appear before the Board of three doctors on 30th of January 1970.
5. The respondent has been examined by Dr. Rashid Ahmad Qureshi, Dr. A. Rauf Ahmad and Dr. Sardar Ali Sheikh, Professors of the Nishter Medical College, Multan. The Board found that the stomach and Deuodenum of-the respondent showed normal appearence and emptying rate.
They did not observe any abnormality. In the opinion of the Board, the respondent had not shown any evidence of active peptic ulcer. The previous record presented to them, however, showed that he was suffering ^ from peptic ulcer with bleeding and the opinion of the Board was ' that the respondent could have been treated at B. V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, for this disease.
6. The opinion of the Board clearly shows that the respondent is not suffering from peptic ulcer and that his stomach is quite normal. The ground on which he was granted bail, therefore, disappears.
7. The orders passed on the file give me an impression that the respondent was evading appearance even previously before this Court. His application for adjournment is a manoeuvre to enlarge the period of to him. Mr. Pirzada could very well have appeared in the absence of Sh.
Khuda Bakhsh but by taking away the brief from him the respondent has deprived him of that opportunity. I will not permit this game of hide and seek to be played with this Court. I refuse the prayer for adjournment. Mr. Tayyib informs me that since his release the respondent did not appear even once before the lower Court in spite of notice. I have seen the file of the case and I find that the statement made by the learned counsel is correct. The order dated 14th of October 1969, passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the respondent was intentionally evading appearance. This is another ground for cancellation of bail. 1, therefore, cancel the to the respondent and direct that he should be taken into custody forthwith.
Petit ion allowed.