2011 PLP 2445 (YLR)

C.M.A. No.1 of 2011 CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--Arguments on the petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. have been heard.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner was convicted under section 376/511, P.P.C. to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.50,000 and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further simple imprison ment for 6 months. The learned counsel has prayed for suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel maintained that Mst. Razia Begum victim of this case, who is present' in the Court, has submitted an affidavit to the effect that a compromise has been affected between the parties and she has no objection if the sentence is suspended and the appellant is released on bail.

3. The learned counsel argued that although the offence was not compoundable yet the superior courts have been taking a lenient view in the cases wherein the parties had effected compromise. In support of his arguments he referred to 1995 PCr.LJ 1606, 2002 SCMR 184, 1998 SCMR 466, 2004 PCr.LJ 923 Lahore, 2009 PCr.LJ 71 Lahore, and 199 PCr.LJ 1107. The learned counsel further maintained that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up for the last more than one year i.e. since 21-4-2010. He was also declared innocent in the investigation and a cancellation report had also been prepared. It was further maintained that actually there was a dispute of property between the parties due to which he was falsely implicated in this case. He also referred to the statement of P.W. Muhammad Irfan who did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile.

4. The learned DPP has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that petitioner is not entitled to bail, as he is involved in commission of a heinous offence.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.

6. The deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage lest the merits of the appeal be prejudiced. The complainant/victim has submitted an affidavit and also stated before this Court that she has no objection if the appellant is released on bail. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 21-4-2010, There is nothing on the record to establish that the appellant is a previous convict or record holder.

7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the C.M., is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judi.) of this Court. H. A.T./M-252/L Sentence suspended.