Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition from Leave to Appeal No. 1.1 of 1980, decided on 11th February, 1980. ,
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 14th November, 1979 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3475/B 1979).
--- S. 497(5)-Bail, cancellation of-Bail granted by High. Court on report and recommendation of a Board consisting of eminent and well known doctors-Accused reported by such doctors to be suffering from diabetes mellitus and tuberculosis-High Court, in circumstances, held, cannot be said to have exercised its discretion improperly and case called for no interference.
Nadir Ahmad Shami, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
S. A. Kirmani, Advocate Supreme Court, Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 10th February, 1980.
This petition is directed against the order dated 14-11-1979 of the Lahore High Court granting bail to Muhammad Bashir Respondent No. 1 on the ground of ill-health. It was argued by Bashir, respondent petitioner that neither in his earlier bail application the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither in his earlier bail application before the High Court which was dismissed on merits, nor in his petition for special leave to appeal against the said order had the respondent mentioned the ground of illness. He urged further that the diseases mentioned in the Report submitted by the Medical Board which examined the respondent are such which could be treated in the Jail hospital.
We notice that with a view to obviate any criticism as to the correctness of the Medical Report on the physical condition of the accused/respondent, the High Court had ordered the accused/respondent to be examined by a Board of three doctors. The doctors constituting the Board are eminent and well-known doctors of Lahore. They have reported that the respondent is suffering from Diabetes Meilitus and that the Ex.Ray had revealed certain indicating that he was also suffering from tuberculosis. It features in cannot, therefore, be said that the High Court has not exercised its discretion properly. In this view of the matter we feel that this is not a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer