ORDER 1998 SCMR 1065, PLD 1995 SC 58 and 1998 PCr.LJ 1597.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that occurrence had taken place in 1998, that all the co-- accused are on bail, one of them is real brother of the present petitioner, that after being released on bail they have absconded and their case has been separated from the case of present petitioner, that petitioner was allowed exemption on its own by the learned trial Court in order to conclude the trial but the petitioner has filed revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha in which the said learned Additional Sessions Judge has stayed the proceedings, that the petitioner party is not allowing the Court to proceed with the case and to conclude the same, that petitioner was allowed bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, same was cancelled by this Court and thereafter, petitioner approached the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide Criminal P.L.A. No.751-L of 2002 in which order of this Court was upheld, that petitioner is hail and healthy, that his case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional A.-G. On Court's call submits that as far as grant of bail on medical ground is concerned, that's, made out but as the conduct of the petitioner and his co- accused is not above board as has been submitted before this Court, then, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner and if the petitioner undertakes to withdraw his revision petition from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, then, the bail may be considered.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he undertakes to withdraw the revision petition from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned trial Court may be allowed to proceed with the case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner was allowed bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge but on an application for cancellation of bail bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.2910/BC of 2002 filed by the complainant bail of the petitioner was cancelled by this Court on 13-8-2002, thereafter, the petitioner approached the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan where the learned counsel informed the Court that challan has been submitted and trial has yet to commence, so in view of such statement of learned counsel the apex Court had ordered that they were not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the petition was dismissed by the apex Court with the direction to complete the trial within three months positively.
6. This application is made on two-fold grounds, that's, on merit and also on medical ground. As far as, merits of the case were concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue the case on merits while arguing his case on 17-2-2003 and requested that petitioner may be allowed bail on medical ground. On this Court ordered M.S., Gulab Devi Hospital, Lahore to constitute a Board of Doctors headed by Dr. Zubair Ahmad, Heart Specialist vide order dated 17-2-2003 and the report of the Board was received on 6-3-2003 which is reproduced below:-- "Board is of the opinion that patient needs further evaluation of his chest pain and requires radio isotope study (SPECT) for which he may be referred to P.I.C., Lahore and examined by the Cardiac Surgeon and Physician there, where he was operated and managed for his cardiac problem."
Thereafter, I direct M.S., Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore to constitute a Board of Doctors to examine the petitioner and to submit a report whether the petitioner can be treated in Jail or not if he is not well, so case was adjourned to 18-3-2003. On 18-3-2003, it was observed by the Board of Doctors that patient should be produced on 31-3-2003 at 8-00 a.m. For the Echo and Stress Thallium Scan test, as advised by the treating consultant, so the relevant authorities are directed to produce the petitioner/patient before the said Board of Doctors for the test which they have recommended. Today, report has been received from Medical Superintendent, Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore which is dated 2-4-2003. The relevant portion of the report is as under:-- "The patient is known hypertensive and had Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in 2002, in this hospital.
He now complains of recurrence of angina. His Thallium Scan was carried out on 31-3-2003 and the report is as follows: Severe, partially reversible perfusion defect involving anterior and anterolateral walls suggestive of critical vessel lesion/partial thickness. Myocardial Infarction with residual ischemia.
Mild to moderate reversible ischemia involving inferior wall.
He needs coronary angiography and graft study. "
After having gone through the report and the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that case of the petitioner is fully covered by the first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. So, this petition on medical ground is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.100,000 (one lac) with two sureties in she like-amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
I may observe here that as far as, conduct of the co-accused is concerned and in this regard, what has been submitted by learned counsel for the complainant, that's, correct and I have also observed the same in my earlier order after perusing the report of learned trial Court and the learned counsel has also informed me that case of the co-- accused has been separated from the case of the present petitioner so, the trial Court would proceed with the case of the present petitioner, even, the learned counsel for the petitioner had undertaken before me that he would withdraw the revision petition filed by the present petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, so I while exercising my powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Direct the learned trial Court to proceed with the case and to complete the same as early as possible because the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while dismissing Criminal Petition No.751-L of 2002 had directed that trial of the care of the petitioner be completed within three months positively.
Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that in case the petitioner does not cooperate with conclusion of the trial and creates hindrances, the trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail allowed to the petitioner.