1. ' This is an application under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. By the complainant in the case in which respondent Khaliluddin is being prosecuted under section 307, P. P. C. Praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the said respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, by his order dated 6-11-1973.
2. ' The brief facts, which form the background of the application for the cancellation of bail, are that on 31-5-19i3, applicant Sarfraz Ahmad had lodged a report at Ferozabad police station, alleging that respondent Khaliluddin had fired revolver shots at him and his brother-in-law, Mohammad Iqbal, intending thereby to kill them, and had actually caused bullet wounds to him and Mohammad Iqbal. A bail application was moved on behalf of respondent Khaliluddin before the committing Magistrate's Court on the grounds that Khallluddin was over 60 years of age and he was suffering from an infirmity. The bail application was supported by a medical certificate from a private medical practitioner indicating that the said respondent was suffering from anxiety and slight hypertension. The committing Magistrate, on the basis of this certificate, allowed bail to respondent Khaliluddin. On an application being moved by the applicant before the Sessions Court, the bail of respondent Khaliluddin was cancelled on the ground that mere age was not a material circumstance to be considered for the purposes of grant or refusal of bail and that further the medical certificate did not disclose any infirmity which could entitle the respondent to the grant of bail. Respondent Khaliluddin thereupon approached the High Court, but his application was dismissed by my Lord, the Chief Justice, with the observation that though the medical certificate did disclose some sickness, the mere fact that a person was 58 or even 61 years of age does not necessarily lead to any presumption that he was suffering from an infirmity, entitling him to bail. The learned Chief Justice further observed that if the respondent herein desired to obtain bail on medical grounds, it was for him to adduce such evidence in support of his request.
3. ' Subsequent to the passing of the order by the High Court, respondent No, 2 obtained a certificate from a Medical Officer of Central Jail, which not only shows that he is suffering from hypertension with high reading, but that further on account of this circumstance his detention in jail "may prove detrimental to his health and subsequently to his life." On the basis of this certificate, respondent No, 2 applied for bail to the committing Magistrate, but his application was rejected. Respondent No, 2, thereupon, approached the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to the said respondent in view of the above medical certificate. It is against this order that the present application has been made by the applicants.
4. ' The applicants and their Advocate, Mr. S. Ansar Hussain, have been called absent. I have, however, heard Mr. S. Sami Ahmed, Advocate, who appears for respondent No, 2 and the Assistant Advocate-General, who appears for the State. The Assistant Advocate-General has frankly conceded that in view of the medical report he is unable to support the application for the cancellation of the bail.
5. Under the proviso to section 497(1) C. P. C. Bail may be granted by the Court to a person who is accused of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, if he is suffering from any sickness or infirmity. In the instant case, the medical evidence clearly shows that not only respondent No, 2 is suffering from a sickness and infirmity, but that such sickness is of a type which in case of detention of respondent No, 2 in jail may not only seriously affect his health but even endanger his life. In the circumstances, the case of respondent No, 2 appears to fall within the ambit of the proviso to section 497(1), C. P. C. If the applicants considered that the medical certificate was not well-founded or that it was obtained by means of misrepresentation or for extraneous consideration, there should have been no difficulty in their way to make an application that respondent No, 2 may be examined by a more senior or responsible Government doctor.
6. However, no such application has been made by them. On the contrary, the applicants as well as their counsel have chosen to remain absent, I am satisfied, in view of the medical certificate, which has not been controverted, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has properly exercised his discretion in releasing the respondent No, 2 on bail. I would accordingly dismiss the said application.