1969 P Cr (PLP)
BAHAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | BAHAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 P Cr (PLP) (BAHAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nasim Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 17th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th April 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1968 in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1968). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 426‑Release of convict on bail pending appeal‑Power to grant bail under S. 426 not wider than power under Ss. 497 & 498, Cr. P. C.‑Strong grounds required to entitle convict to bail under S. 426. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 426‑Release of convict on bail pending appeal‑Power to grant bail under S. 426 not wider than power under Ss. 497 & 498, Cr. P. C.‑Strong grounds required to entitle convict to bail under S. 426. Nasim Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 17th October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of transportation for life awarded to the petitioner under section 302, P. P. C. pending the disposal of the appeal preferred by him from his conviction. It is contended that the conditions laid down under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail are not attracted in the matter of suspension of sentence under section 426 and that there is no legal evidence on record to sustain the petitioner's conviction. There is no force in the contention that the powers conferred on an appellate Court under section 426 to suspend sentence pending the hearing of an appeal are wider than the power to release on bail under sections 497 and 498 of the Code. A person accused of a non‑bailable offence may not be released on bail if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. A fortiori a person convicted of such an offence would no be entitled to bail under section 426 unless strong grounds are made to appear that conviction is not liable to be sustained. No such ground was brought to the notice of the High Court. The learned Judge, therefore, acted rightly in refusing to suspend the sentence of transportation for life awarded to the petitioner. The prayer for leave to appeal is refused. Dismissed. Leave refused.