' WAHID BUX BROHI, J.--Appellant Islamuddin Shaikh, through the applications cited above, under section 426 read with section 561-A. Cr.P.C. Has sought bail on merits of the cases as also on the ground of health and that he has served out substantial part of his sentence. The main appeals have been preferred by Islamuddin Shaikh (applicant) and co-accused Akhtar All against the judgments passed by the Accountability Court No,1, Province of Sindh, Karachi in the cases arising out References Nos.10 of 2000, 11 of 2000 and 12 of 2000 respectively made by the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau whereby, in each case the applicant and co-accused were convicted under section 10 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years. They were also sentenced to fine of Rs,73.342 million, Rs,4,35,96,177 and Rs,4,59,54,322 respectively in each reference and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years.
2. On the above applications, which we propose to dispose of through this order, we have heard Mr.Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.Anwar Tariq, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB.
3. At the outset it may be mentioned that the applications were not pressed on merits of the case.
The plea founded on the ground that substantive portion of the sentence has already been served out was also not pressed in view of the circumstances coming to the knowledge of learned counsel at a later stage. Nevertheless, it would be relevant to point out that regular hearing of the appeals has commenced and Mr.Aitizaz Ahsan, learned counsel for appellant has partly argued the cases which are now fixed in the first week of next month.
4. As far the ground of health is concerned the applicant was examined by Special Medical Board, C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana constituted and convened on 6-8-2002 in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sukkur and the following opinion was recorded by the Board: "In view of his past medical history of Diabetes Mullitus Coronary Artary disease (old myocardial infarction with two vessel disease) and chronic low back pain, the members of Special Medical Board are of the opinion that:
(1) He should be managed in hospital. He is advised fresh Coronary Angiography for proper assessm ent for chest pain and future management (like angio plasty/CABGS).
(2) Advised latest M.R.I. And preferably with Myelography Lumbo Sacral region for proper assessm ent and management of his clinical illness."
5. On 5-11-2002 it was contended on behalf of the applicant that such facilities as are required for the purpose of medical treatment in pursuance of the aforesaid report are not available at Sukkur.
It was, therefore, ordered by this Court that the Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Sukkur and Medical Superintendent, Chandka Medical College. Larkana shall inform this Court if the above facilities are available with them. The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sukkur reported that facilities for Coronary Angiography, M.R.I. And Myelography were not available in Civil Hospital, Sukkur. The Medical Superintendent, C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana also informed that facilities of Coronary Angiography were not available in C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana. Learned counsel for appellant, therefore, urged that since the applicant is suffering from a serious heart ailment, as opined by the Special Medical Board and the facilities, as reported by the two hospitals at Sukkur and Larkana for Coronary Angiography etc. Are lacking in those hospitals the applicant may be released on bail. He placed reliance on Muhammad Saeed Mehdi v. State (2002 SCM R 282) and Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo v. State (2000 SCM R 107). Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for NAB opposed the bail plea on the ground that the required medical facilities are available at Karachi and he has no objection if the applicant is shifted to Karachi where such medical treatment may be provided to him through a dpctor/surgeon of his choice.
6. We have carefully considered these contentions. The main advice tendered by the Special Medical Board is that the applicant be managed in a hospital and fresh Coronary Angiography may be conducted for proper assessment of 'chest pain' and for future management like angio plasty/CABGS. On the face of"it these medical observations do not spell out immediate threat to the life of applicant and the Coronary Angiography is suggested for future management. This advice was administered more than 3 months back and at the best if Coronary Angiography is imminently required even now, the applicant can avail such facility from a doctor of his choice at Karachi for which necessary arrangements can be made, while he is detained in the Central Prison at Karachi. Right now. On this ground there is no point in suspending the long sentences of imprisonment awarded to him in 3 cases which shall normally run consecutively unless ordered otherwise. Latest M.R.I. And Myelography, as suggested by the Board, additionally, can also be conducted simultaneously when the applicant is shifted to Karachi.
7. In Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo's case (supra) the accused was still facing the trial and the following observations made iii Muhammad Yousufullah's case (PLD 1995 SC 58)were relied upon:- ' the correct criteria for grant of bail to an accused in a non- bailable case, on medical ground, in our view, would be that the sickness or ailment with which the accused is suffering is such that it cannot be properly treated within the premises of jail and that some specialized treatment is needed and his continued detention in Jail is likely to affect his capacity or is hazardous to his life."
8. The observations made in , Zakhim Khan Masood's case (1998 SCM R 1065) were also taken into consideration and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the accused observed as under:-- "As discussed earlier, the object of criminal prosecution is not to punish an undertrial prisoner thr the offence alleged against him. The object of criminal trial is that the accused is made to face the trial and answer the criminal charge against him. Since we have reached the conclusion after considering the medical report received from A.F.I.C. On the condition of the appellant that his continued detention in the jail is hazardous to his life and that the specialized treatment needed by him, cannot be provided within the jail premises, we are inclined to admit the appellant to bail in all the above three cases."
9. Initially, the case of present applicant is on a distinct footing as compared to the circumstances in which bail was granted in4the cited case. Firstly, the accused in the cited case was facing trial whereas the applicant has been convicted and awarded long sentences. Secondly, the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was taken into consideration was in respect of an undertrial prisoner in whose favour medical reports were. To the effect that his treatment within the premises of jail was not possible and continued detention in jail was likely to affect his capacity or was hazardous to his life. In particular, in Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached the conclusion that on consideration of the medical report the condition of appellant was such that his continuous detention in jail was hazardous to his life. This aspect of the circumstances is lacking in the instant case. The appellant is a convict, he has to serve out the sentences unless the same are set aside and notwithstanding this background there is no specific observation that delay in Coronary Angiography was hazardous to his life. In Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo's case Angiography had already been done and a definite view about Coronary 'Artery disease had been taken on the basis of Coronary Angiography, but in the instant case Coronary Angiography is yet to be conducted.
10. In Muhammad Saeed Mehdi's case (2002 SCM R 282) the medical ground urged in support of the bail plea had not been controverted by the prosecution. The case was also at the stage of trial and the accused was found entitled to bail on a variety of other grounds.
11. We have considered all these aspects. The hearing of the main appeals is likely to conclude in the first week of next month which date has been fixed on the choice of learned counsel for appellant/applicant. Indeed. We do not find a reason to place the case of the applicant on the same pedestal as that of an undertrial prisoner, whose detention may likely continue for an indefinite period without trial being concluded. Evenotherwise the shield of presumption of innocence ceases to exist after conviction. On humanitarian grounds. However, the applicant deserves medical treatment which is not available to him at Sukkur and Larkana, therefore, while rejecting the bail plea it is directed that the applicant shall be shifted to Karachi where he may be allowed facility of Coronary Angiography and other medical treatment through a doctor of his choice and in that behalf the jail authorities should not create any hurdle in the process of medical consultation. The applicant may also be lodged in such hospital as advised by the doctor for a limited period solely for the purpose of Coronary Angiography, M.R.I. And Myelography. The applications for bail and suspension of sentence are consequently dismissed.