1. ' The learned Advocate-General has moved before me for cancellation of bail granted to the accused Sarzaman and Abdul Ghafar by the Sessions Court, Ghizar. His principal attack against the bail order proceeds from the fact that the accused had been denied bail earlier by this Court after taking into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances including the health condition of the principal accused. Therefore, it is contended, that in ordering release of the accused the Sessions Court has in effect disregarded the observations of this Court. That alone would render the order bad in law which for that reason deserves to be revoked.
2. Health of a person being a fluctuating status rejection of bail once on medical grounds cannot and is not intended to act as perennial impediment for subsequent consideration. If the present state of health warrants and later judicial appreciation finds on it, there is no reason why an accused should remain deprived of Courts' indulgence just because once upon a time he was held not so entitled.
3. ' Yet the learned Advocate-General's criticism of the impugned bail order of the trial Judge is not altogether bizarre and would seem to have a good bit of substance inasmuch as on strict legal view the trial Judge was expected not to be swayed by compassion as he apparently did but apply law which on plainest of understanding forbade him to take up a matter on those very grounds-- the medical ground -- which had not found favor with this Court. If any downturn in the accused's health status subsequent to dismissal of his earlier petition justified such intervention this Court was the 'proper forum for him to make fresh prayer which could be considered in the context of latest medical evidence, if any. But in the presence of an articulate detailed order of this Court repelling respondent's solicitation for reasons of health involving a diseased heart it was certainly not for the trial Judge to assume the function of fine-tuning with a view to monitor if some change in the respondent's cardiac condition however, insignificant had meanwhile occurred which was sufficient to neutralize the effect of the judgment of this Court, and invest him with authority to effectively overrule it. The tendency such as this on the part of the learned trial Judge for acting a good Smaritan at the cost of professional calling is not looked with `7,vour which better be held in check in future. The present aberration is however, condoned, for once, assuming he erred from want of proper appreciation rather than anything extra-judicial.
4. ' Without going into the plausibility of the charge or lack of it I propose for the purposes of considering this petition to confine evaluation to the existing health condition of the respondent and to see whether it entitled him to bail.
5. ' I went through the case record especially that part of it that throws light on the health condition of the accused Sarzaman which his learned counsel contended has been persisting for quite a few years, about a decade now. All the medical papers which are many and date back to as far back as 1986 would clearly show that the accused is a known case of Ischemic Heart Disease which as per clinical notes is likely to deteriorate further in an environment of stress and strain. The record also shows that a serious health complication developed recently in the month of December last when he was referred by the Cardiologist of the District Hospital, Gilgit to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi. There he was examined on 20-12-1995 by Senior Cardiologist of that.
6. Institute, Brig. Ashure Khan, who found him suffering from, among other symptoms, of dyspnea with signs of Anteroseptal Myocardial infarction and advised to continue treatment and avoid mental and physical stress and strain. In .The yet later prescription of 3-4-1996 the respondent Sarzaman has been advised surgery. That happened after he had been denied bail by this Court on 17-10- 1995.
7. Thus, from his decade long medical history having particular regard to the latest downturn in his health above noticed it is established that the accused Sarzaman is a confirmed patient of myocardia Ischaemia and his persistent importuning for bail inter alia on the medical ground is no mere exercise in malingering resorted to, possibly with dishonorable motives, in order to deceive the Court to procure his temporary escape from the rigours of jail.
8. ' In the circumstances I am convinced that it would not be proper exercise of this Court's supervisory jurisdiction to rescind as prayed for the bail order, of the trial Judge primarily passed keeping in view the respondent's cardiac ailment which even going by lay perception, let alone definitive expert opinion, has strong likelihood to deteriorate to a point of irreversible damage in the stress and strain of prison when it is not even necessary for the interest of justice. For one thing, the accused throughout the period of his bail, it is admitted, has been thoroughly regular in his attendance before Courts. For another, there is no allegation/complaint that he has tried to misuse his provisional liberty as an undertrial to intimidate the complainant party or to suborn the prosecution witnesses most of whom in any case it is confirmed at the bar by the Advocate- General stand examined in the trial proceedings and have not supported the prosecution case.
9. ' As for the co-accused Abdul Ghafar who along with Sarzaman was also allowed bail by the trial Judge for non-imputing of any significant role to him in the alleged offence. The learned Advocate-General equally failed to make out any case for cancelling his bail either. Instead, he gracefully conceded no evidence.
10. In result, keeping in view standard prognosis of a cardiac disease in the environment of stress together with respondent Sarzaman's specific state of health as projected in the clinical notes about him and also taking into account other considerations briefly noticed just above I do abstain from revoking bail) allowed to the two accused above-named and hereby dismiss the present petition accordingly.