2005 PLP 3149 (YLR)

SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.

As the prayer in all these three petitions is with regard to the grant of bail to the petitioner in the pending Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos.39, 40 and 41 of 2002, and the grounds raised therein are the same, we are disposing them of through this common order. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho says that according to the jail roll furnished by the Jail Authorities, the petitioner has undergone a total sentence of 11 years and 26 days where remissions are counted from the date of conviction. Hence, the petitioner has to undergo the remaining period of 18 years, 11 months and 4 days thus making up the entire period of thirty years given to him in all the three cases, including the period to be undergone due to non-payment of fine. However, a period of 5 years, 3 months and 5 days remission has not been given to the petitioner in the light of the judgments of this Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.275 of 2001, whereby it has been held that remissions can only be counted from the date of conviction. Similarly, per learned counsel, another period of nine months has also not been given to the petitioner since the approval of the Inspector General of Prisons is awaited regarding such remissions being granted to the petitioner upon him having passed Adeeb Urdu, 2000 examination and Holy Qur'an Nazra. Per learned counsel, in a number of cases decided by this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, it has been held that in view of the fact that the issue regarding remissions being counted from the date of arrest or from the date of conviction being sub judice before the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, in pending matters such remissions viz. From the date of arrest, were awarded in favour of the accused. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to order of this Court dated 21-2-2003 passed in Cr. Accountability Appeal No.33 of 2002 titled Waryam Fakir v. The State; Abdul Sami Mangrio v. The State Constitution Petition No.D-453 of 2004; the case of Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State PLD 2002 Kar. 497; Khan Muhammad Mehar v. The State 2003 SCMR 22 Abdul Sattar Dero v. The State Cr. Petition No.423 of 2002 SC as well as the case of Adnan Khawaja v. The State Cr. Petition No.281 of 2004 SC and Ch. Muhammad Shareef v. The Sate Cr. Petition No.314 of 2002 SC. Consequently, learned counsel submits that if the remissions due to the petitioner are counted from the date of arrest, then he would have undergone a major portion of his substantive sentence viz., 16 years out of the total sentence of 24 years even if all the three sentences were taken separately. In the circumstances of the case, learned counsel prays that the appeals of the petitioner are pending since the year 2002 and still not decided, therefore, the petitioner be granted bail in all the three cases. Learned D.P.G., NAB, has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner basically on the ground that in the case of Khan Muhammad Mehar (supra), while counting the remissions from the date of arrest, the entire portion of the substantive sentence had been served by the accused and hence bail was granted. We have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned D.P.G., NAB. It would be seen that both this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court have given the benefit of remissions to the accused in a number of cases (supra) counting the same from the date of arrest. Similarly, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Adnan Khawaja (supra) as well as a number of other cases including the case of Saeedullah Soomro v. The State 2004 SCMR 660, has allowed bail to the accused where the major portion of the substantive sentence had been served out. In the present case, it would be seen that if the remissions are counted from the date of arrest of the petitioner, 213 of the substantive sentence viz. 16 years out of 24 years, have been undergone by him. Consequently, while following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Adnan Khawaja and Abdul Sattar Dero (supra), we would allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released on bail provided he submits a solvent surety along with PR bond in the amount of Rs. 10 million in each of the three cases, to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The petitions stand disposed of along with the pending applications. N.H.Q./Z-25/K Bail allowed.