2003 PLP 1194 (YLR)
MUBARAK ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1194 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | MUBARAK ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1194 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1194 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1194 (YLR) (MUBARAK ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Mumtaz Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased or to any prosecution witness‑‑‑Whether or not the accused had shared common intention with other accused would be seen at the time of hearing of the main appeal‑‑‑Appeal was not likely to be heard in near future and the accused, if ultimately acquitted, could not be compensated for the period he would undergo in jail due to pendency of appeal‑‑‑Sentence of imprisonment far life of accused was suspended in circumstances and he was released on bail accordingly. Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State. Date of hearing: 6th February, 2003. This application has been tiled for suspension of sentence of the petitioner who stands convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a direction to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased, in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for six months.
2. It is contended that petitioner Sakhi Muhammad has not caused any injury to the deceased or to P.W. He is simply named in the F.I.R. without specific role. It is also contended that there is no likelihood of hearing of the main appeal in near future and if ultimately the petitioner is acquitted, the period he had undergone in jail cannot be compensated.
3. The learned counsel for State has opposed the petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
5. Admittedly the petitioner has not caused any injury to any P.W. or to the deceased. Whether he shared the common intention or not, will be seen at the time or hearing of the main appeal. Though the petitioner has been convicted but there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future and petitioner if ultimately acquitted, he cannot be compensated for the period he will undergo in jail due to pendency of appeal.
6. In view of the above, we allow this petition, suspend the sentence of the petitioner and order his release on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1723/L Sentence suspended.