2016 PLP 414 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 414 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 414 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 414 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 414 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sajjad Haider Maitla for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Suspension of sentence, pending appeal
Appeal against judgment of the Trial Court was filed after about two months, and since then more than two years and eight months had elapsed, but appeal had not been decided finally and accused was behind the bars after pronouncement of the impugned judgment
Delay in disposal of appeal, could not be said to have been caused by accused
Accused, in circumstances, had earned statutory right under S.426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C., which underlined that, convict would be entitled to grant of bail through suspension of sentence, if he had been sentenced for imprisonment for life or exceeding seven years imprisonment and his appeal was not decided within a period of two years
Appeal of accused, was not likely to be decided finally in near future
Prosecution could not point out any material against accused, which would show that he was hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal
Further captivity of accused in jail, would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution
Accused was entitled to be released on bail by suspending his sentence on statutory ground
Sentences of accused, were suspended, and he was released on bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No.1 of 2015 ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.
Through the instant petition, Muhammad Ubaidullah, petitioner has sought suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No.205/2009, dated 01.11.2009, under Section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Daulat Gate, Multan and vide judgment dated 16.07.2012 he was convicted under Section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100,000/- under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default of which to further undergo six months SI. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was, however, extended to him.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgment was passed on 16.07.2012 and he is behind the bars since the pronouncement of the impugned judgment; that there is no likelihood of early hearing of the main appeal; that the petitioner also deserves suspension of his sentence on the ground of statutory delay in terms of amendment under Section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is previous non-convict; that neither he is hardened/desperate nor dangerous criminal.
3. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition.
4. Perusal of the file reveals that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 16.07.2012 and the instant appeal was filed on 22.09.2012 and since then more than two years and eight months have been elapsed but the instant appeal has not yet been decided finally and the petitioner is behind the bars after pronouncement of the impugned judgment. Delay in disposal of his appeal cannot be said to be caused by him. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has earned statutory right introduced vide amendment in Section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. which underlines that a convict shall be entitled to grant of bail through suspension of sentence, if he has been sentenced for imprisonment for life or exceeding seven years imprisonment and his appeal is not decided within a period of two years. The appeal of the present petitioner is not likely to be decided finally in near future. Even otherwise, learned DPG as well as the learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any material against the petitioner which shows that he is hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal. In these circumstances, further captivity of the petitioner in jail will not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution and he is entitled to be released on bail by suspending his sentence on statutory ground.
5. Resultantly, without touching the merits of the case, the instant petition is accepted on statutory ground, sentences of the petitioner is suspended and he is released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar(Judl) of this Court. He is further directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main appeal. HBT/M-248/L Sentence suspended.