' AJMAL MIAN, J.-- By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above five (5) criminal bail applications.
' Criminal Bail Application Nos.654 of 1987 and 655 of 1987 have been filed by Aftab Ahmed Shah Jamote arising out of the two cases namely, one under section 124-A, P.P.C, hereinafter referred to as the Code, and the second under section 13 of the prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974, herein after referred to as the Act of 1974, respectively both pending before the learned Special Court (Hyderabad Division) at Karachi being Cases Nos. SH-8/87 and S.H. 1/87 respectively, which were filed on or about 31-3-1937 on the basis of the senction accorded by the Provincial Government under section 196, Cr.P.C. In February and March, 1987; whereas Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 797 of 1987 and 798 of 1987 have been filed by Mumtaz Ali Bhutto arising out of the two cases namely, one case under section 13 of the Act of 1974 and the second under section 124-A of the Code being Cases Nos. SH-1 of 1987 and SH-8 of 1987 respectively, both pending before the learned Special Court (Hyderabad Division) at Karachi, which were filed on or about 31-3-1987 on the basis of the sanction accorded by the Provincial Government under section 196, Cr.P.C. In Fabruary and March, 1987.
' The aforesaid four (4) Bail Applications relate to one incident which had taken place on 2-10-1986 at 12-15 when the aforesaid application along with their alleged co-accused reached in a procession of about 20-25 case at Khalid Pandhiani farm in Taluka Nala near Nasarpur and allegedly made participated in the making of objectionable speeches in presence of 600 to 700 people and raised objectionable slogans in respect of which DIB prepared a report, on the basis of which- S.H.O. Ghulam Mohammad Memon, P.S. Matiari lodged a report at Police Station Matiari on the Written direction of the Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad on 9-2-1987. The above DIB report and its English translation are marked as 'A' and 'A-A', whereas the F.I.R. And its English translation are marked 'B' abd 'B-1' and are enclosed, inter alia with the Bail Application No,654 of 1987. Since the bove DIB report is the basis for the aforesaid four (4) cases, it may be advantageoud to reproduce hereinbelow the English translation of the same, which reads-as follows: "Today, on 2-10-1986 at about 1215 Hours (1) Mumtaz Ali Bhutto (2) Abdul Hafiz Pirzada; (3) Mehran Ali Mangi (4) Ganhwar Khan (5) Yusuf Talpur; (6) Aftab Shah Jamote, came to the Farm of Khalid Pandhiani in Taluke Hala, near Nasarpur in the procession of about 20 to 25 cars, where about 6 to 7 hundred people were present, who fired in the air to welcome them. Important among them were
(1) Gul Ahmad Pandhiani; (2) Sikandar Pandhiani; (3) Khalid Pandhiani and others. Following persons were in the reception committee, who made speeches;
(1) Gul Ahmed Pandhiari, General Secretary of Front, Hyderabad.
(2) Jamil Ahmed Soomro, Central Confederal Association Front.
(3) Aftab Ahmed Shah Jamote, Convenor, Hyderabad.
(4) Mir Gauyar Khan, Baluchistan.
(5) Shah Jehan, Organiser, N.-W.F.P.
(6) Abdul Hafiz Pirzada; and
(7) Mumtaz Bhutto.
' Above mentioned persons in their speeches said that we have come to present programmer of the Front before you and we do not want votes from you nor we have come to shed your blood. By passing 1945 Resolution we got rid of cruel Bruisers and their brokers but we realize today that Bruisers time was thousand times better, In those days people could laugh. There was law and order. There was freedom of speech. If Bruisers committed excess by firing bullets at us but they were foreigners and our enemy. These days by becoming elder brother they fire bullets at younger brothers. Every person's tends to revolt against the excess of their own people.
' We have repeatedly said that punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and Sarhad ( the stomachs will burst and you will die. During the P.P.P. Regime when we came to a discussion on distribution of water between Sind and Punjab and we demanded the then P.P.P leader and Cheif Minister Hanif Ramay said that Indus River should be closed by four walls at a recreational point because in Sind water of Indus operates due to heat of sun. This was the thinking of Punjab. Punjab is sucking the blood of Sind, Baluchistan and N.-W.F.P. For the last 40 years but now we shall not allow them. We demand rights from Punjab on the basis of equality. We appeal to Punjab in the name of humanity that they should sit together and talk to us and enter into a new agreement under which every province should have its own rights and each province should have equal representation in the army. If they do not grant us autonomy and our rights then let them have their way and we will adopt our own ways. In East Pakistan they were given their rights, 'though they were dependent on Punjab. They are independent and they enjoy their freedom which is not available to us. Those in favor of federation talk of stronger center and we are not opposed to the same Sind wants freedom-- Baluchistan wants freedom--Slogans Mazdoor demands freedom-Hari demands freedom--The reception ended at 1425 hours. The above mentioned people had lunch and at about 1530 hours went away in Hala via Matiari in their cars.
' NOTE. This reception was given by Gul Ahmad Pandhiani, a retired Major of the Armay at the Farm of Khalid Pandhini."
' The above applicants have applied for bail before the learned Special Court but their applications were declined by a common order dated 6-5-1987 on the ground that at this stage it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants have committed the offences alleged against them. It was also held that in veiw of provisions of section 5 (6) of the Suppression of the Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1975, even the medical ground was not available to applicant Mumtaz Ali Bhutto as the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Were subject to the provisions of Act of 1975. The two applicants have therefore, filed the above four (4) Bail Applications.
2. Criminal Bail Application No, 775 of 1987 has been filed by four (4) applicants namely, Sher Khan, Phunoo, Aijaz Ali and Dr. Mumtaz Ali. The Provincial Government accorded sanction on 29-1-1987 under section 196, Cr.P.C. For initiating prosecution under sections 154-A and 153-A of the Code read with section 13 of Act of 1974. In pursuance thereof a complaint was filed on 5-2-1987 in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Thatta. The applicants obtained bail on 25-2-1987 from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Thatta and furnished bail bonds but they were not released and they were detained under the M.P.O. After that on 18-3-1987 the Provincial Government accorded sanction under section 196, Cr.P.C. In modification of the earlier and authorised Syed Siraj Hussain, D.S.P. To file a complainant under section 124-A of the Code read with section 13 of Act of 1974 in the Special Court (Hyderabad Division), which was filed on 21-3- 1987, in pursuance whereof non-bailable warrants were issued. Paras. 3 to 8 of the aforesaid complaint gives the prosecution cases which read as follows:-
(3) That on 26-9-1986 at about 17-00 hours at Uqaili Mohallah Thatta a meeting of convienor of Sind Balouch Paknoon Front had taken place and also a Jalsa was held in which about 3000/3500 persons perticipated.
(4) That the Jalsa was arranged by Dr. Mumtaz Ali Uqaili.
(5) That the above accused made speeches and vehemently criticised the Ideology of Pakistan and propogated Confederal system in the country and instigated the people to the succession from the Federation on the basis that Pakistan comprises of more than one nationality and thereby attempted to bring hatred and contempt and tried to create disaffection towards the Government established by law.
(6) That the above accused incited the people of small province to rise against the people of the other Provinces and thereby sought to create hatred and amongst the different classes of people of Pakistan and to disrupt the unity of Pakistan with intent to excite dissatisfaction towards the Central Government duly established by law.
(7) That the above accused have made fire brand speeches and hurled serious allegations against the present Federal and Provincial Governments. Speeches were made wherein it was vehemently urged that the Constitution of 1973 be abrogated and the powers from the President be snatched.
(8) That they also raised Anti-Government, Anti-State slogans and also against the 1973 Constitution by branding it as a fraud. The slogans were (1) whosoever is friend of Federal Government is traitor (2) Sind, Baluch and Pakhtoon demand liberty and independence, (3)
Pakhtonistan Zindabad (4) "General Zia par Lanat" and also General and Colonels (5) G.M. Syed and Gandhi of Sarhad will dismember the Pakistan (6) Our mentor is G.M. Syed (7) Kala Bagh Dam is not accepted (8) Our Desh is Sindhudesh. The above incident was witnessed by Si Karaat Hussain, H.C. Abdul Rahim, Constable Mohammad Qasim, Constable Ghulam Shabbir, Constable Abdul Aziz and Constable Ghulam Mohammad, Mr.Mohammad Bachal, Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Thatta, Tapedar Ahmed Khan Da11, who were present at the time of incident."
' The aforesaid four (4) applicants applied for bail which was declined by the learned Special Court by its order dated 19-5-1987.The applicants have, therefore, filed the present bail application.
3(a) Messrs Mohammad Hayat Junejo and Mir Mohammad Shaikh appearing in the first four (4) bail applications have submtted as follows:-
(i) That there was no reliable material before the learned Special Court to conclude that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of a scheduled offence, inasmuch as a gist of alleged speeches made by various persons was produced and not the script or the gist of each of the speech.
(ii) That the alleged gist of the speeches of verious speakers cannot form the basis for recording conviction either under section 124-A of the Code or under section 13 of Act of 1974.
(iii) That the learned Special Court erred in hodling that the medical ground is not available to an applicant tried under the Act of 1975 and that' section 497, Cr.P.C. Cannot be invoked.
(iv) That the alleged speeches do not constitute any offence either under section 124-A of the Code of section 13 of Act of 1974.
(b) Mr. Nooruddin Sarki adopted the above arguments and subkitted that complaint has been filed mala fidely against the applicants in Criminal Bail Application No, 775 of 1987. He has further submitted that in the sanction accorded by the Provincial Government under section 196, Cr.P.C. It has not been stated under which portion of clause of section 13 of Act of 1974 the complaint was to be filed.
(c) On the other hand Messrs A.A. Mohammadally, learned Additional Advocate-General, who appeared in Criminal Bail Application 775 of 1987 and Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate-General who has appeared in the remaining four (4) bail applications have urged as follows:-
(i) That there was sufficient material before the learned Special Court to have tentatively concluded that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of a scheduled offence.
(ii) That the embargo contained in subsection (6) of section 5 of Act of 1975 against the grant of bail cannot be removed by invoking section 497, Cr.P.C.
(iii) That this Court cannot examine the evidence at this stage.
4. Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo in support of his above first submission that there was no reliable material before the learned Special Court to conclude that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of a scheduled offence, has invited our attention to the above quoted D.I.B. Report referred to hereinabove in para 1, which is the foundation of the F.I.R.
And of both the complaints and has submitted that there is no script or gist of the speech of each of the applicants, the above joint DIB report cannot be relied upon for recording conviction as is the case of joint confession or joint recovery, inter alia, in murder cases.
4. Syed Sarfaraz Ahmed learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State in the above first four bail applications has placed on record Photostat copies of the following documents:
(i) Special Branch Hyderabad secret political report dated 4-10-1986, para 1 of which had reproduced the above D.I.B report.
(ii) Complaint under section 124-A of the Code filed before the Special Judge.
(iii) F.I.R. Under sections 153-A and 123-A of the Code which has reproduced the above DIB report.
(iv) Alleged statements of H.C. No, 1064 Rasool Bux, P.C. No, 2111, Haji Khan P.C. No, 692, P.C. Pathan Khan and P C. Ghulam Qadir, all attached to P.P. Shahpur of Police Station Matari.
(v) Extract from the police diary.
(vi) Provincial Government's sanctions dated 26-2-1987 and 1-3-1987.
' It may be observed that the above alleged statements of the Police Head Constable and Constables are in fact prima face, reproduction of the D.I.B. Report and the above statements do not contain individual speeches of each of the applicants, nor the above statements contain the date or the person who recorded the same. Syed Sarfaraz Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate- General has candidly submitted that he does not have any other material for the time being to place on record. The position which emerges is that the prosecution does not have either the veleatim script of the speech of each of the applicants in the first bail applications nor the gist of speech of each of the applicants separately.
6. Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo in furtherance of his above submission has referred to the following cases:
(i) Sardar v. The State 1970 P Cr. L J 773 in which a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court which considering a bail application in a murder case held that a joint extra-judicial confession has no veidentiary value and, therefore, excluded from consideration. Bail was granted.
(ii) Mamoon and 9 others v. The State 1971 PCr.LJ 197, In the above case also a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while considering a bail application in a murder case held that joint extra judicial confessions is not admissible and, therefore, granted bail.
(iii) Haji Ahmad and another v. The State 1979 PCr.LJ 460. In the above case a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while allowing an appeal in a murder case held that joint extra judicial confession has no value.
(iv) Manzoor and others v. The State PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 1023, in which a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan while allowing an appeal of some of the accused held that joint extra judicial confession has no value and cannot be relied safely.
(v) Amir Ali v. The State PLD 1980 (W.P.) Kar.
758. In the above case a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan comprising of Qadeeruddin Ahmed (as he then was) and I.B. Khamisani, JJ. While allowing an appeal in a murder case and while considering sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act held that where the joint act of several persons are sought to be proved, in order to ask the Court to draw an inference from such conduct, evidnece should be led with some degree of perticularly so that it may be possible for the Court to draw the necessary inference from the conduct of each one of the persons concerned in the act.
(vi) Khalas Khan and another v. The State 1975 PCr.LJ 172. In the above case a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held that joint recoveries are not admissible in the absence of any evidene on the point as to which accused first led to the place of recovery.
(vii) Abdul Ghani and 3 others v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1462. In the above case a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Sind and Baluchistan comprising of Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem and M.A. Rashid, JJ. (as they then were).
While allowing an appeal in a .... Murder case held that recoveries made on potation of several accused jointly was not admissible. In this regard referred may also be made to the following cases:
(i) Kidar Nath Sahgal v. Emperor AIR 1929 Lah. 817, in which a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while construing section 124-A inter alia held that in properly construing a speech, it has to be read as a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit, and one should not pauss on an objectionable sentence here or a strong word there.
(ii) Maniben Liladhar Karan v. Emperor AIR 1933 Bom.
65. In the above case a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while construing sections 124-A and 153-A held that in determining the effect of a speech the Court has to look at the speech as a whole, and not to pay under regard to any particular sentence or phrase and that looking at the speech as a whole the Court has togather from the language used what the intention of the speaker was.
7. From the above cited and referred cases, it is evidence that by now it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudent that a joint extra-judicial confession or a joint recovery cannot be admissible on a piece of evidence against an accused persons. It is also evidence from the above two referred cases of the Lahore and Bombay High Courts that in order to examines, whether a speech falls within the which of section 124-A or 153-A of the Code, the Court has to construe the speech as whole and not to give emphasize on a particular portion of the speech. In the above four 'bail applications as pointed out hereinabove neither the verbatim speeches of the applicants nor the gist of their speeches are available, Whereas in the aforesaid fifth bail application even D.I.B. Report or any other document containing the joint report of the speeches has not been placed on record, though the averments made in the complaint are of serious nature, and may fall within the mischief of the sections charged with.
' Mr. A.A. Mohammadally learned Additional Advocate-General has relied upon the press cuttings of 'Jang' and 'Ibrat', though not placed on record. Apart from the fact that it is a debatable point, whether we can look into the press reports at this stage without ascertaining their authenticity, the above press report when read out in the Court did not tally with the complaint. Then it was submited by Messrs AA. Mohammadally and Syed Sarfaraz Ahmed that this Court cannot examined the question, whether there is any reliable evidence on record at this stage, whereas learned counsel for the applicants, Messrs Mohammad Hayat Junejo and Mir Mohammad Shaikh have urged that even at the bail stage a tentaive assessment of the nature of the evidence on record is to be made. We are inclined to hold that the prevalent view is that even at the bail stage the Court has to examine tentatively the nature of the evidence available against the accused person charged with the offence, though a definite finding is not to be recorded as to the credibility of the evidnece not on record. In this regard reference may be made to the following cases:
(i) Chaudhry Abdul Malik v. The Stae PLD 1968 SC 349,
(ii) Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277,
(iii) Khalid Javed Gillani v. The State PLD 1978 SC 356, and
(iv) Professor Mohammad Hancef v. The State 1979 SCMR 459.
' In all the above cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court has toy C examine the evidence, though to tentatively at the bail stage.
8. We have already dilated upon the nature of the material available on the record against the applicants. Without expressing ourselves definitely on the admissibility and credibility of the same, we may observe that the nature of the same is that which makes the cases of further injuiry inter alia, on the question, whether there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of scheduled offence.
9. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that clause (h) of the schedule of Act of 1975 only covers sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of Section 2 of Act of 1974 and not sub- clauses (3) and (4). It was further submitted that factually the alleged joint speeches do not come within the mischief of the above sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of section 2 or section 124-A or 153-A of the Code. In furtherance of the above submission reliance was placed on the following cases by Mr. Shaikh Mir Mohammad: ' In the matter of the Dally Ehsan PLD 1949 Lah. 282, in which a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court while construing the provisions of section 4(1)(d) and (h) of press (Emergency Powers) Act XXIII'
1913 in relation to an Article "Muharram and Mussalman" in which the mode of observance of Muharram was criticised, held that the same has not contravened the above provision.
(ii) Z.A. Sullen and others V. The Crown PLD 1954 Sind 80. In the above case a learned Single Judge of the Sind Chief Court while construing section 124-A, P.P.C. Held that it is not every kind of disaffection, hatred or contempt which would constitute Sedition.
(iii) Shaikh Fazlaul Hague alias Moni v. The State PLD 1971 Dacca 154, in which a learned Single Judge of the Dacca High Court while construing a speech with reference to Rules 41(6)(e), (g), (h) and 47 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 held that the impugned speech is to be construed as a whole and in fair, free and liberal spirit without laying stress or emphasis on strong or irritating words used here and there. It was further held that impugned speeach allcgdly containing explanation of manifesto and programme of political party inviting Government's attention towards economic conditions and disparity between provinces and urging peoles to stand by its programmer, does not constitute a prejudicial act punishable under Rule 47.
(iv) Tofazzal Hossain v. Provisions of East Pakistan and others PLD 1965 Dacca 478. In the above case a Division Bench while controling sections 2 (4) (c), 2 (5) and 8 of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance and section 124-A, P.P.0 and section 4(1)(d) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 held that the provisions in the aforsaid first Ordinance were substantially same as that of section 124-A of P.P.0 and that the provisions were not intended merely to ponder to wounded vanity of an unusually touchy Government
10. In our view, it is not necessary for us at this stage to record even a tentative finding to the effect whether the alleged speeches to constitute an offence or not under the provisions charged with as we have already tentatively taken the view that the material-on-record for the reasons already discussed hereinabove, makee a case of further enquiry on the question, whether there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of a scheduled offence.
Hewever, we may observe that the allegations contained in the complaint quoted hereinabove in para 1 which gave rise to the aforesaid fifth bail application are of such serious nature, that if some of them are true. They may fall within the mischief of the Sections charged with.
11. This leads us to the question as to the effect of subsection (6) of section 5 of the Act of 1975 which reads as follows:- "5(6) An accused parson shall not be released on bail by a Special Court, or by any other Court, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of a scheduled offences; nor shall an accused person be so released unless the prosecution has been given notice to show cause why he should not be so released."
A perusal of the above quoted subsection (6) of section 5 indicates that 1 prohibition to grant bail is not absolute but conditional and dependent on the question, whether there appear reasonable grounds for believing that an applicant has been guilty of a scheduled offence. In other words, if the special Court or the High Court takes the tentative view that there do not appear reasonable grounds for believing that an applicant has been guilty of a schedaled offences, bail can be granted. The above position was candidly conceded by Messrs A.A. Mohammadally and Syed Sarfaraz Ahmed, learned Additional Advocate-General and Assistant Advocate-General respectively; whereas the learned counsel lot the applicants have submitted that this Court can press into service the provisions of sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. In spite of the above subsection
(6) of section 5. They have referred to the following cases: ' Mirza Jawad Beg v. The State PLD 1975 Kar. 628, in which a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Sind and Baluchistan held that in a case of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, a Division Bench of the High Court as an appellant Court has the power in a fit case to grant interlocutory relief to release the accused on bail.
(ii) Ch. Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. v. The State PLD 1977 SC 373, in which the majority view was that even in a case triable by the Special Court for offences under the Defence of Pakistan Rules and Sections 124-A and 153-A P.P.C, the High Court can invoke the provisions of sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.0 and can grant bail as the above provisions are. Supplementary.
(iii) Abdul Majid v. The Judge, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore and another 1985 P Cr. L J 890, wherein a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while construing section 5(6) of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, held that the provision of section 497, Cr.P.C. Was applicable to the case pending before the Special Courts and the bail can be granted to a person accused of offences mentioned in schedule under the Ordinance.
(iv) Muhammad Yaqub Ali v. The State PLD 1985 Lah.
48. In the above case a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, comprising of Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza (as he then was) and ()urban Sadiq Ikram, JJ. Reiterated the above Lahore view, namely, that section 497, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked even in respect of scheduled offences triable under the aforesaid offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984.
(v) Muhammad Mjosa v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 578. In the above case a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Abdul Qadeer Chauithy (as he than was) and Mamoon Kazi, JJ. Held in relations to the Scheduled Offences under the aforesaid offances in respect of Bank (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 that saction 498, Cr.P.C. Can be pressed into service by the High Court during the pendency of a case before the Special Court.
(vi) Gul Mohammad and 2 others v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 737.
' In the above case a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Nasir Aslam Zahid and Ally Madad Shah, JJ. While dealing with a case triable under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 held that the benefit of provisions III and IV of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Was available to the accused.
12. There seems to be preponderance of view that even in the cases triable by Special Courts under special laws in the absences of any express prohibition is the relevant statute, sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Can be inovoked inter alia, by the High Court while considering a bail application. There is no express prohibition provided in the Act of 1975 as to the application of sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Mr. A.A. Mohammadally has referred to subsections (1) to (5) of section 5 of the Act of 1975 and also section 10 of the Act of 1975 to contend that the provisions of Cr.P.C. Are not applicable. It will suffice to observe that he has over-looked subsection (7) of section 5 which provides that "A Special Court shall, in all matters with respect to which no procedure has been prescribed by this Act, follow the procedure prescribed by the code for the trial of summons cases by Magistrates." In case of any inconsistency between a provision of the Act of 1975 a to the procedure and a provision of the Cr.P.C. The former shall prevail but in the absence of a provision in Act of 1975 the provisions of Cr.P.C. Will be applicable even in a trial before the Special Court. Section 10 which overrides the other law does not change the above legal position.
13. In Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 797 of 1987 and 798 of 1987 applicant Mumtaz Ali Khan Bhutto has taken an additional ground of illness. In support of the above ground, he has produced a number of medical reports of foreign experts and of Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre, National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Karachi, and the opinion of a Medical Board constituted by the Provincial Government. It will suffice to reproduce the latter which reads as follows: Proceedings of Special Medical Board.
As per Order No, SOVI(R)1/87, dated 16-3-1987, from Secretary to the Government of Sind, Health Department, Karachi, to examine Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, the Medical Board was held in the Private Ward, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi, on 17-3-1987 at 11-00 a.m. The following attended:-
(1) Professor Sharif Choudhry, Professor of Cardiology, Civil Hospital Karachi.
Chairman
(2) Professor Mukhtiar Azim Burza, Professor of Medicine, D.M.C./Civil Hospital, Karachi.
(3) Dr. Sanaullah Qureshi, Medical Superintendent Services Hospital and Civil Surgean, Karachi.Member Member Convenor ' Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto was examined by the Board today on 17-3-1987.
' Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto has been complaining of central chest pain frequently on exertion and he consumes 2-3 sub-lingual Isodril tablets every day. Buring his stay as a patisent in National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi, he has been subjected twice for H.T.T. (1st on 16-12- 1986 and then on 3-2-1987) one of these E.T.T. Is strongly positive consistent with significant coronary Artery disease.
' Today on examination, he is it minus rhythm and R.P. Is 110/70 m.v. Mg. There are no cardiac congestion signs. His resting H.C.G. Shows old healed anterior myocardial infraction and a possible old healed inferior infarction as well.
' In view of the symptomatology and a positive R.T.T. The members of the board are of the opinion that he should be further investigated by coronary Angiography with a view to subsequent surgical treatment as dictated by such investigation preferably abroad.
' End: A.H.C.G. Tracing dated 17-3-1987."
The above documents have not been controverted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad. A perusal of the above documents on record clearly indicate that the above applicant needs medical attendance preferably abroad as per opinion of the Medical Board.
' Since we have held that the provisions of sections 497 and 498 can be invoked, in our view the above applicant has made out the above additional ground for bail. The Special Tribunal Sukkur, by its order dated 25-8-1987 has granted bail inter alias, to above applicant in four cases on the medical ground. The Humble Supreme Court in a recent case namely Criminal Petition No, 58-K of 1987, granted bail to Dr. Rizvi on 4-8-1987 on the ground of illness though he was charged with under sections 395, 385, 365, 364 read with section 109, P.P.C.
14. Before parting with the above discussions, we may refer to the case of Sardar Ata Ullah Khan v.
The State reported in PLD 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 136, in which Mahiduddin Ahmad, Jan he then was, while leading with a bail application at the applicant who was charged with under section 124-A and was facing trial before the Special Magistrate, perused the script of the alleged seditious speech which was placed before the Court and took note of the fact that no untoward incident has taken place because of the alleged seditious speech. He granted bail to the applicant on his giving an undertaking that he will not address any public meeting on political question during the pendency of the trial.
In the instant case nothing has been brought on record to indicate that on account of the alleged seditious speech any untoward incident had taken place, on the contrary the diary note in respect of the meeting held at Khalid Farm indicates that everything was all right.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we admit the applicants to bail in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) each with one surety and P.R. In the like amount in each of the above bail applications to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Special Court on the conditions that it will be open to the prosecution to move an application for cancellation of bail is case the applicants misuse the concession of bail and make any speech or statement, which may fall within the mischief of any of the sections with which the applicants have been charged with.