2003 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. MANAN alias NAZIR MAI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain and Muhammad Khalid Alvi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MANAN alias NAZIR MAI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain and Muhammad Khalid Alvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. MANAN alias NAZIR MAI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Riaz Hussain for Petitioner/Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 426 & 497‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), 9(b)‑‑‑Application for suspension of sentence‑‑‑Accused being a woman had already been granted post‑arrest bail by the High. Court on the ground that her husband had been murdered and she had 5 children to look after, eldest of them at the time being hardly 13 years old‑‑ Principles which governed grant of bail under S.497, Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the convict under S.426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court, in circumstances, allowed the petition and suspended the sentence of the convict pending disposal of her appeal. Mst. Zahida Bibi and others v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 1035 ref. Syed Anwar‑ul‑Haq Shah for the State. .
Judgment & Decree
She, thereafter, has brought the instant petition on 26‑8‑2002.
3. The office perhaps has inadvertently given the same number i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2002 to it. Any way, this seems to be mere clerical mistake. We, therefore, ignore the same and treat it a fresh/new petition after disposal of earlier said petition and proceed to dispose of the same.
4. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the petitioner was convicted by the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge in the above mentioned case under section 9(b) of Act (supra) and sentenced to undergo 5 years' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 and in default to further suffer three months' S.I.
5. It has been contended on her behalf that she is a woman and on this score alone deserves suspension of her sentence and her admitting to bail as the same principles, which govern the grant or otherwise of bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. will be applicable to the question of suspension of sentence and grant of bail under section 426, Cr.P.C. and that her husband was murdered and after the same she had been looking after her five minor children and out of them the eldest is hardly 14 years of age and they all due to her detention in jail are badly suffering and so on this compassionate ground too she deserves suspension of sentence and her admitting to bail.
6. Conversely, the learned . State Counsel has opposed the application.
7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.
8. She is a woman. There is with the instant petition certified copy of order, dated 24‑10‑2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court comprising of our learned brothers Tassaduq Hussain Jilani. J. and Raja Muhammad Sabir, J., in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2156/B of 2001, whereby, she was allowed post‑arrest bail in the said case.
9. We have found in that order of our learned brothers that her husband had been murdered and she has five children to look after and eldest of them at that time was hardly 13 years old.
10. The learned State Counsel has not been able to controvert the contention that the same principles, which govern the grant or otherwise of bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the question of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to a convict under section 426, Cr.P.C.
11. Even otherwise the contention has force. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Mst. Zahida Bibi and others v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1035 (Lahore).
12. In this view of the matter, we find that case for suspension of her sentence and her release on bail has been made out.
13. We, therefore, accept the instant petition and suspend her sentence and pending disposal of her said appeal admit her to bail provided she furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. S.M.A.H./M‑1486/L Bail granted.