2014 PLP 303 (YLR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2014 PLP 303 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Nisar Muhammad Shaikh and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 303 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 303 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Nisar Muhammad Shaikh and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 303 (YLR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Madad Ali Shah for Appellant.
- Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.-G. for Respondent.
- ----S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)--- Qatl-e-amd--- Suspension of sentence pending appeal and release of accused on bail---Present jail appeal was filed by appellants/accused persons, three days after awarding them conviction by the Trial Court, and it was admitted for hearing after one month and four days from its filing---Order sheet had revealed that there was no delay on the part of accused party in proceeding with the appeal---Record did not show any adjournment application moved by accused persons or their advocate---Period of statutory delay, in the case, appeared to have matured for consideration of the release of accused persons on bail---Nothing was on record to indicate, if accused were previously convicted, or were involved in any act of terrorism---No material had been brought on record to indicate that accused were desperate, hardened or dangerous criminals---Accused persons, who were in jail since the day of their arrest on 9-4-2004, seemed to be entitled for the suspension of their sentence and grant of bail pending appeal---Sentence awarded to accused persons, was suspended and they were directed to be released on bail in circumstances.
- 2. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying upon the cases reported as 2012 PCr.LJ 634, 2012 MLD 1532, PLD 1995 SC 49, 2012 YLR 2914, 2012 PCr.LJ 1172, 2012 YLR 77, 2013 YLR 906, 2013 PCr.LJ 403, contended that though the appellants were awarded life imprisonment for having committed the murder of Khuda Bux Leghari but no fire arm injury was alleged by the prosecution to have been caused by the appellants on any vital part of the body of the deceased and the injuries allegedly sustained by the deceased at the hands of appellants were not fatal, therefore, the case of the appellants which otherwise is fit for their acquittal, is at least good for grant of their bail on the ground of statutory delay in decision of their pending appeal. He further submits that there is no delay on the part of the appellants or their Advocate in causing any delay in decision of this Criminal Jail Appeal, therefore, the appellants are entitled for such relief, which is mandatory in nature as provided in the statute by way of amendment in section 426, Cr.P.C. He further submits that even otherwise the appellants, who were awarded life imprisonment, have remained in jail for more than 11 years and 13 years remain to be undergone by them, therefore, such long period during which the appellants remained in jail, also provide a valid ground for consideration for the grant of concession of bail.
- 5. The record shows that the appellants were awarded conviction vide judgment dated 13-11-2010 and they filed this Criminal Jail Appeal through Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad vide his letter dated 16-11-2010 and thereafter this appeal was admitted on 20-12-2010. Since the appellants were not represented by any advocate, therefore, the paper book was prepared by the office on 27-1-2011 on State expenses. However, the present learned counsel filed his Vakalatnama for appellants on 23-5-2011. The perusal of order sheet reveals that there was no delay on the part of the appellants party in proceeding with this appeal. However, on 13-6-2012, the matter was adjourned to 20-6-2012 at the request of learned counsel for the appellants. In this connection, the learned counsel/the appellants submits for this delay of only 7 days that on such date, the matter was not fixed for regular hearing but it was fixed merely for hearing of application i.e. M.A. No.777 of 2012. It further appears that on 5-7-2012, the matter was adjourned by consent of both the parties to 24-3-2012 for regular hearing. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this delay of about 20 days is not exclusively attributed to the appellants. Apart from above, record does not show any adjournment application if moved by the appellants or their advocate. Accordingly, the period of statutory delay appears to have matured for consideration of the release of the appellants on bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)
Suspension of sentence pending appeal and release of accused on bail
Present jail appeal was filed by appellants/accused persons, three days after awarding them conviction by the Trial Court, and it was admitted for hearing after one month and four days from its filing
Order sheet had revealed that there was no delay on the part of accused party in proceeding with the appeal
Record did not show any adjournment application moved by accused persons or their advocate
Period of statutory delay, in the case, appeared to have matured for consideration of the release of accused persons on bail
Nothing was on record to indicate, if accused were previously convicted, or were involved in any act of terrorism
No material had been brought on record to indicate that accused were desperate, hardened or dangerous criminals
Accused persons, who were in jail since the day of their arrest on 9-4-2004, seemed to be entitled for the suspension of their sentence and grant of bail pending appeal
Sentence awarded to accused persons, was suspended and they were directed to be released on bail in circumstances. 2012 PCr.LJ 634; 2012 MLD 1532; PLD 1995 SC 49; 2012 YLR 2914; 2012 PCr.LJ 1172; 2012 YLR 77; 2013 YLR 906 and 2013 PCr.LJ 403 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The appellants Ghulam Muhammad and Allah Dino seek the grant of bail with suspension of sentence on the ground of statutory delay in disposal of this Criminal Jail Appeal filed by them against their conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000 each and compensation of Rs.200,000 each. Such conviction and sentence was awarded to the appellants vide judgment dated 13-11-2010, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Badin in connection with Crime No.24 of 2004 of Police Station Matli.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying upon the cases reported as 2012 PCr.LJ 634, 2012 MLD 1532, PLD 1995 SC 49, 2012 YLR 2914, 2012 PCr.LJ 1172, 2012 YLR 77, 2013 YLR 906, 2013 PCr.LJ 403, contended that though the appellants were awarded life imprisonment for having committed the murder of Khuda Bux Leghari but no fire arm injury was alleged by the prosecution to have been caused by the appellants on any vital part of the body of the deceased and the injuries allegedly sustained by the deceased at the hands of appellants were not fatal, therefore, the case of the appellants which otherwise is fit for their acquittal, is at least good for grant of their bail on the ground of statutory delay in decision of their pending appeal. He further submits that there is no delay on the part of the appellants or their Advocate in causing any delay in decision of this Criminal Jail Appeal, therefore, the appellants are entitled for such relief, which is mandatory in nature as provided in the statute by way of amendment in section 426, Cr.P.C. He further submits that even otherwise the appellants, who were awarded life imprisonment, have remained in jail for more than 11 years and 13 years remain to be undergone by them, therefore, such long period during which the appellants remained in jail, also provide a valid ground for consideration for the grant of concession of bail.
3. On the other hand, the learned A.P.G. Sindh opposed the above bail application contending that the prosecution is ready to proceed with this appeal and there is no delay from their side, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the concession of bail merely on expiry of a period of two years after their conviction.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record as well as the case law as cited by learned counsel for the appellants.
5. The record shows that the appellants were awarded conviction vide judgment dated 13-11-2010 and they filed this Criminal Jail Appeal through Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad vide his letter dated 16-11-2010 and thereafter this appeal was admitted on 20-12-2010. Since the appellants were not represented by any advocate, therefore, the paper book was prepared by the office on 27-1-2011 on State expenses. However, the present learned counsel filed his Vakalatnama for appellants on 23-5-2011. The perusal of order sheet reveals that there was no delay on the part of the appellants party in proceeding with this appeal. However, on 13-6-2012, the matter was adjourned to 20-6-2012 at the request of learned counsel for the appellants. In this connection, the learned counsel/the appellants submits for this delay of only 7 days that on such date, the matter was not fixed for regular hearing but it was fixed merely for hearing of application i.e. M.A. No.777 of 2012. It further appears that on 5-7-2012, the matter was adjourned by consent of both the parties to 24-3-2012 for regular hearing. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this delay of about 20 days is not exclusively attributed to the appellants. Apart from above, record does not show any adjournment application if moved by the appellants or their advocate. Accordingly, the period of statutory delay appears to have matured for consideration of the release of the appellants on bail.
6. So far as the other embargo prescribed in the amended provisions of section 426, Cr.P.C. is concerned, the reports were called for from the SSP and Jail Superintendent concerned but there is nothing on record to indicate if the appellants were previously convicted or they were involved in any act of terrorism. No material has been brought on record to indicate that the appellants are desparate, hardened or dangerous criminals.
7. In view of the above position, the appellants who are in Jail since the day of their arrest effected on 9-4-2004, seem to be entitled for the relief as sought for by them. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellants, is hereby suspended and they are directed to be released on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000 (Rupees three hundred thousand only) each and PR Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. The appellants shall attend the Court on each and every date of hearing and in case, they are found to have misused the concession of this bail, the learned A.P.G. Sindh shall be at liberty to move application for cancellation of their bail. HBT/G-35/K Sentence suspended.