2017 PLP 91 (SCMR)
SULTAN MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus KALEEM ULLAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 91 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus KALEEM ULLAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 91 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 91 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Iqbal Hameedur Rahman and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 91 (SCMR) (SULTAN MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus KALEEM ULLAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2014)
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302
Suspension of sentence and release on bail
Statutory delay in disposal of appeal
Occurrence in the present case had taken place during the night and a collective allegation had been levelled by the prosecution against 6 to 7 persons including the accused regarding firing at the deceased
Medical evidence had shown that the deceased had received only one firearm entry wound on his body which, allegedly stood attributed to 6/7 persons
During investigation accused had been declared to be innocent and his name was placed in column No. 2 of the challan
Nothing had been recovered from the custody of accused during the investigation
All the co-accused persons had been acquitted by the Trial Court and the case against accused was prima facie at par with the acquitted co-accused persons
Accused had remained on bail during his trial and no allegation had been levelled against him regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail
Accused had spent about fourteen months in jail after recording of his conviction by the Trial Court and there was no prospect of an early hearing of his appeal before the High Court
In such circumstances the High Court had rightly suspended the sentence of accused during the pendency of his appeal and had admitted him on bail
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
With the assistance of the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State we have gone through the memorandum of this petition, the impugned order passed by the High Court and the relevant record of the case appended with this petition and have observed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night at Tahajjud prayer's time and a collective allegation had been leveled by the prosecution against 6/7 persons including respondent No. 1 regarding firing at Qari Muhammad Ramzan deceased inside a mosque. The medical evidence had shown that the deceased had received only one firearm entry wound on his body which, as observed above, stood attributed to 6/7 persons. During the investigation respondent No.1 had been declared to be innocent and his name was placed in column No. 2 of the Challan. Nothing had been recovered from the custody of respondent No. 1 during the investigation. All the co-accused of respondent No. 1 had been acquitted by the trial court. In the impugned order the High Court had observed that the case against respondent No. 1 was prima facie at par with that against his acquitted co-accused. Respondent No. I had remained on bail during his trial and no allegation had been leveled regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by him. Respondent No. 1 had spent about fourteen months in jail after recording of his conviction by the trial court and there was no prospect of an early hearing of his appeal before the High Court. In these circumstances the High Court had suspended the sentence of respondent No. 1 during the pendency of his appeal and had admitted him on bail. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of the case we have not felt persuaded to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/S-29/SC Sentence suspended.