Appeal of accused was not going to be taken up for hearing in the near futureSentence of accused was suspended in circumstan (PLP)
AHMAD YAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | Appeal of accused was not going to be taken up for hearing in the near futureSentence of accused was suspended in circumstan (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Nawaz Malik, J |
| Parties | AHMAD YAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in Appeal of accused was not going to be taken up for hearing in the near futureSentence of accused was suspended in circumstan (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 Appeal of accused was not going to be taken up for hearing in the near futureSentence of accused was suspended in circumstan (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Nawaz Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: Appeal of accused was not going to be taken up for hearing in the near futureSentence of accused was suspended in circumstan (PLP) (AHMAD YAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(c)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑‑Accused had been sentenced to five years R.I. under S.302 (c), P. P. C. with benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr. P. C. and he was in jail for the last one year and eight months‑‑‑Appeal of accused was not going to be taken up for hearing in the near future‑‑ Sentence of accused was suspended in circumstances and he was admitted to bail accordingly. S.M. Rashid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Amad Yar petitioner alongwith his co‑convict Allah Ditta, his son, have been convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. by the learned 'Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, vide judgment dated 3‑12‑1997. The petitioner has been sentenced to 5 years' R. I. and directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Wali Muhammad. He was also given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. Ahmad Yar has moved this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of his sentence on the ground that the sentence is short.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 17‑6‑1996 and since then he has been in the jail. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. has also been extended to him. The appeal of the petitioner is not going to be taken up for hearing in the near future as the criminal appeals of the year 1985 are being heard these days. For these reasons this petition is allowed, and the execution of sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The bail bonds etc. after acceptance shall be transmitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for being placed on the file of this appeal. N.H.Q./A‑109/L Sentence suspended.