1998 PLP 1326 (MLD)

(a) to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of six months of his conviction; (b) to imprisonment for a period exceeding three years but not exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of one year of his conviction; (c) to imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of two years of his conviction. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of any appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (2-A) Subject to the Provisions of section 382-A, when any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is sentenced to imprisonment by a Court, and an appeal lies from that sentence, the Court may, if the convicted person satisfies the Court that he intends to present an appeal, order that he be released on bail, for a period sufficient in the opinion of the Court to enable him to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under subsection (1) and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended: (2-B)Where High Court is satisfied that a convicted person has been granted special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court against any sentence which it has imposed or maintained, it may, if it so thinks fit orders that pending the appeal the sentence or order appealed against be suspended, and also, if the said person is in confinement, that he be released on bail. (3) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment, or imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced. " Clearly then clause (c) of subsection (1-A) to section 426, Cr.P.C. is applicable as a mandatory provision. I am not bound by that mandate as the imprisonment of both the applicants exceeds seven years and that memo of appeal was received only one month and seven days ago on 19-11-1997. So far as decision on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence is concerned, I find that no allegation of torture or inducement has even been suggested to the magistrate having recorded the confessional statement of applicant Ali Ahmed. No suggestion has been made to him regarding his being an incompetent magistrate to record such a statement. Ali Ahmed's statement, although resiled, is clearly involving him and applicant Jameel Ahmed as abettors. It reads: This confessional statement is corroborated by Akbar Khan (P.W,2) to the extent of Ali Ahmed's involvement as abettor as he wanted to know the 8 whereabouts of deceased Akram to pass the information to the explicit culprits, This witness has deposed as under and inspires confidence. So far as the case of Jameel Ahmed is concerned, even if he has not undergone identification parade, yet the confessional statement of Ali Ahmed coupled with the deposition of Mst. Jameela (P.W.6) is enough to indicate that this is not the stage where he has attained his entitlement to be released on bail under section 426, Cr.P.C. Deposition of Mst. Jameela (P.W.6) reads: So far as the allegation that the real culprits have been acquitted is patently incorrect as the impugned judgment has clearly mentioned their involvement in the following final three lines:? ??????????? "The case against absconding accused Hafiz Yar Muhammad Zabar Khan and Rehmatullah be kept on dormant their permanent warrant be issued. "? ???????????

5. Consequently, I do not find this case fit to order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and that the applicants be released on bail or on their own bond. Application fails. H.B.T./1181/FSC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application rejected.