' Through this order, Criminal Miscellaneous No,341 of 1997 (B.C.A.), filed by Yar Muhammad for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent, Sangeen Khan, vide order, dated 4-4-1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nowshera in case F.I.R. No,81, dated 17-3-1994 under section 302/324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Nowshera Cantt, is being disposed of.
2. As per contents of the F.I.R. This tragic incident occurred on 17-3-1994 at 17-30 hours on Manki Road as reported by the complainant-petitioner Yar Muhammad in injured condition, wherein it is stated that he alongwith his other relatives had gone to Mardan to attend the marriage ceremony of his relative, namely, Nawab Ali and after the end of the ceremony were coming back to their houses by a Tractor Trolly. When they reached near Octroi Post on Manki Road, accused- respondent alongwith absconding co-accused emerged there on two motor cars. They alighted from their motor cars, stopped the Tractor Trolly and started indiscriminate firing at them, as a result, complainant-petitioner, Tilla Muhammad, Raj Muhammad, Khalid Muhammad, Zeeshan (minor), Mst. Walayat Bibi, Humayun and Lal Daraz were injured while Mst. Banosha wife of Gul Faraz died on the spot. Accused-respondent and other co-accused made their escape good after the occurrence.
3. Subsequently the accused-respondent surrendered before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nowshera and sought his release through an application of bail before arrest dated 12-8-1996. He was released on ad interim bail but his bail order was not confirmed and recalled vide order dated 12-11-1996. Thereafter, he moved a post arrest bail in the Court of Sessions Judge Nowshera purely on medical ground, which was accepted and the accused-respondent was admitted to bail by order dated 4-4-1997.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant-petitioner seeks cancellation of bail allowed to the accused-respondent, through this application.
5. Criticising the bail granting order Mr. Salim Dil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused-respondent alongwith his absconding accused are directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. For spraying bullet on the complainant-petitioner and other occupants of the Tractor Trolly and thereafter remained absconder for about two years and five months. As a result of the firing by the accused-respondent and absconding accused, seven persons named above have sustained injuries while one Mst. Banosha died on the spot. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Nowshera was influenced by the ailment of the accused-respondent like Angina and Hypertension as opined by the standing Medical Board and he extended the concession of bail to the accused-respondent on this sole ground. He next contended that the disease as alleged by the accused-respondent and opined by the Medical Board is not such which could not be treated in jail and the report of the Medical Board in fact is not in favour of the accused-respondent as Angina and Hypertension is not a disease which could not be treated in jail.
6. On the other hand Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that trial of the case has since been commenced and the accused-respondent has not misused the concession of bail and there is nothing on record in this regard and as such the bail cancellation petition is not worth consideration.
7. Mr. Arshad Abdullah, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order and adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-respondent.
8. I have consciously considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the report of Standing Medical Board and impugned bail order.
9. The report of Standing Medical Board indicates that accused-respondent is suffering from Angina with Hypertension (High Blood Pressure) and the patient is advised to continue his treatment. The said sickness is not such a disease which could not be treated in jail. Rather such type of disease is so common now-a-days and every third person is suffering from Hypertension and Angina, this ailment only requires oral treatment. The nature of sickness as transpires from the report of Medical Board is curable and the sickness can be treated in jail as treatment and care of such a normal type of disease is available in jail hospital at any time.
10. No doubt, under the proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is within the discretion of the Court to release an accused on bail under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence but there should be very strong reasons to believe that nature of disease is such, which requires a special treatment and care which is not possible in jail and further detention in jail would endanger the life of an accused. The case of the present accused- respondent is, thus, not covered under proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In its true perspective.
11. The learned trial Judge had not properly assessed the nature/gravity of the sickness and had wrongly allowed the concession bail to the accused-respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and State that as trial has been commenced, therefore, it would not be justified to recall the bail order, is having no force as the very impugned bail order was passed during the pendencey of the trial. The application for bail cancellation is, therefore, accepted and the bail order dated 4-4-1997 of learned Sessions Judge, Nowshera is recalled. The accused-respondent is present in Court, taken into custody and sent to judicial lock-up. 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.