P L D 2008 Karachi 516 (PLP)
ABDUL QADIR and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2008 Karachi 516 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL QADIR and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2008 Karachi 516 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2008 Karachi 516 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2008 Karachi 516 (PLP) (ABDUL QADIR and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Application for suspension of sentence, pending appeal
Appeal was pending since 2003, paper book had been prepared, but case could not be listed for regular hearing due to heavy pendency of cases
Every litigant had a right that his case should be decided without loss of time
Arguments advanced by the counsel for accused went to the root of the case, which could only be appreciated at the time of hearing of appeal when the entire evidence available on record would be thrashed out
While hearing an application under S.426, Cr.P.C., deeper appreciation of evidence was not required
Application for suspension of sentence was disposed of with direction to office to fix the matter for regular hearing within specified period.
Ss. 426 & 497
Granting bail pending appeals in offences falling under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail, pending appeals in the offences falling under the prohibitory clause, could not be granted, unless it was shown that conviction was based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and was not ultimately sustainable
Grant of bail without considering or ascertaining question. of guilt or innocence on merits through appraisal of evidence, was not justified.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--By this application, the appellant has prayed for releasing him on bail during pendency of appeal. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned conviction and sentence is opposed to the facts and evidence available on record and that appellant is in custody since last more than 4 years. The learned Assistant A.-G. submits that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and unless the judgment is fully scrutinized, the grant of bail at this stage is not proper. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. It is the right of every litigant that his case should be decided without loss of time. This appeal is pending since 2003 and I have been informed that paper book has been prepared but the case could not be listed for regular hearing due to heavy pendency. Bail pending appeals in the offences falling under the prohibitory 'clause cannot be granted unless it is shown that conviction is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and is not ultimately sustainable. The grant of bail without considering or ascertaining question of guilt or innocence on merits through appraisal of evidence is not justified. For the above observation reliance is being placed on the reported case of Muhammad Saleem v. The State, PLD 2006 SC
483. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant goes to the root of the case which could only be appreciated at the time of hearing of appeal when the entire evidence available on record would be thrashed out. It is also now well-settled principle of law that while hearing an application under section 426, Cr.P.C., deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2003 SCMR
911. In view of the above, it will be proper that this application be disposed of with direction to office to fix this matter for regular hearing within 3 months. H.B.T./A-88/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly