1996 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Din and another v. The State 1986 SCMR 1970(1) Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State 1991 SCMR 1459 and Barkat Hussain v. The State 1995 SCMR 1109 ref. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner. Muhammad Aslam Khokhar for the State. About the blind murder of Muhammad Naeem deceased, Muhammad Saeed complainant P.W. got recorded F.I.R. No.306, dated 18-11-1990 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari under section 302/34, P.P.C. Muhammad Zahid petitioner-convict was arrested and was tried. Vide judgment, dated 24-6-1993 Muhammad Zahid petitioner-appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and to fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of its payment to undergo R.I. for a period of two months and also to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased to the tune of Rs.10,000 or to default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months under section 302, P.P.C. He was also convicted and sentenced under section 392, P.P.C. as an offence under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to R.I. for a period of four years and to fine of Rs.1,000 or to default of its payment to undergo R.I. for a period of one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Since the petitioner was convicted on 24-6-1993 and the continuous period of his said detention has exceeded two years he has filed this application under section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. for the suspension of the sentences awarded to him.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has argued that in spite of the lapse of the period of two years from the date (24-6-1993) of the conviction of the petitioner neither the appeal has been heard and disposed of nor there is any likelihood to the matter and that the petitioner has earned a valuable right under section 426(1-A)(c). Cr.P.C. for the purpose of his admission to bail. The case-law is not bereft of the judicial decision wherein the convict who was awarded the life imprisonment was admitted to bail after the suspension of the sentence due to the lapse of a period of two years and the pendency of his appeal. In Muhammad Din and another v. The State 1986 SCMR 1970(1) the convict detained in jail for more than two years was released on bail as the hearing of the appeal did not commence. It was held in Muhammad Yaqoob and others v The State 1991 SCMR 1459 that mere observation of the High Court that case was not proper one for enlarging accused on bail could hardly constitute a good reason justifying withholding a benefit expressly given to the convict by section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. in a matter where the appeal of the accused against their conviction and sentences remained un disposed of for a period of more than two years in High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the accused was released on bail. Same view was expressed in Barkat Hussain v. The State 1995 SCMR 1109. The sentence of the appellant was suspended whose appeal remained un disposed by the High Court within a period of two years after the conviction. As against the aforesaid statutory law and the case-law learned State Counsel has not been able to refer to any provision of law and the ruling of the superior Courts of the country. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed that the petitioner has earned a valuable right of suspension of sentence and his admission to bail under section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. whose appeal has not been disposed of till today (8-11-1995) even though he was convicted on 24-6-1993.

4. I, therefore, accept this application, suspend the sentence awarded to Muhammad Zahid petitioner-convict and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, District Vehari. After attestation of the bail bond etc. the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala shall send all the relevant papers to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for addition to this file.

5. Copy dasti subject to payment of usual charges, if desired. N.H.Q./M-2643/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence suspended.