News
Feed
APPEAL
1: Suspension of Sentence/Bails
2007 SCMR 1844.
S.124-A/131/109/505(a)/468/471/469/500
PPC. Plea of convict was that necessary sanction of government had not been
obtained for purpose of taking cognizance of offence U/S 124-A PPC and that he
had already undergone all sentences except sentences U/S 131/109 PPC., which
would stand served out, if remissions granted under law from time to time were
credited to him........ Validity........ Sentences awarded to convict would
stand undergone while crediting to him remission granted under law. Not a
single hearing had taken place in appeal, provisions of S.426(3) CrPC would
come in operation and period of suspension of sentence would stand excluded and
convict would have to undergo sentence awarded to him by court. SENTENCES
SUSPENDED.
1995 PCrLJ 490. Abdul Aziz V/S The
State (Lahore).
S.302/447 PPC. Benefit created by
the legislature must be given to the convict as a matter of right and not as a
matter of discretion whose appeal has not been heard according to the
classification given in clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Sub-section 1-A of S.426
CrPC unless by his conduct he deprives himself of the said benefit. BAIL
GRANTED
PLD 1995 SC 576. Sajjad Bashir V/S
The State .
S.302 PPC. S.426(1-A)(c) & 439
CrPC. Accused appealed against his conviction and released on bail by High
Court. Complainant filed revision petition for enhancement of sentence. Held:
Even if High Court, after hearing complainant’s counsel in revision petition,
was of such view, the proper course open to the High Court was to have summoned
the appeal file and served notice on the accused to show cause why his bail was
not to be recalled and then after hearing him, to pass a legal order. High
Court’s order cancelling bail of accused being illegal was consequently set
aside and he was directed to be released from jail to remain on bail in
compliance with the earlier bail order of High Court passed in his appeal BAIL
CANCELLATION ORDER RECALLED
NLR 1997 SD 369. Mazhar @ Mazhari
etc. V/S The State (Bahawalpur DB).
S.426(1) CrPC. Right given to
convict by S/426(1) cannot be denied to him when there is no fault on his part
in disposal of his appeal within statutory period. Appellate Court U/S 426(1)
shall, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing it otherwise directs, order
a convict to be released on bail U/S 426(1). Plea that convict had acted in a
cruel manner in causing injuries would be no ground to withhold right U/S
426(1) CrPC. BAIL GRANTED
NLR 1996 CrLJ 179 Muhammad Zahid V/S
The State (Multan).
S.426(1)(c) CrPC S.302/34 PPC.
Convict whose appeal has not been decided in two years is entitled to
suspension of sentence of life imprisonment. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED
PLD 1996 Lahore 466 Manzoor Ahmed
V/S The State.
S.426(1)(c) CrPC. S.302(b)/452 PPC.
Accused on account of his continuous detention exceeding two years after his
conviction whose appeal had not been fixed for hearing and disposed of so far
had secured the legal point and had become entitled to derive the legal benefit
thereof. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED
1998 PCrLJ 245 Nawaz Kahn V/S The
State (Lahore).
S.302(b) PPC. Earlier application of
accused for suspension of sentence dismissed on merits could not stand in the
way of High Court to adjudicate upon his present application for suspension of
sentence on the statutory ground. Appeal of accused notwithstanding the expiry
of the statutory period of two years was not likely to be fixed for hearing in
near future. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED
2000 MLD 140. Gulzar & 2 Others
V/S The State (Lahore DB).
S.302/34 PPC. S.426 CrPC. Suspension
of sentence was sought on ground that no overt act was ascribed to convicts as
deceased had fallen a prey to co-convict’s gunshot and that statutory period
prescribed by S.426 had lapsed. Contention of convicts remained uncontroverted
from prosecution side. CONVICTION SUSPENDED
2001 MLD 1335. Muhammad Mustafa V/S
The State (Lahore DB).
S.302/34 PPC. S.426(1-A) CrPC.
Tentative assessment of such material prima facie had shown that the accused
had acted in a manner which had reflected that he was hard-hearted, callous and
of a desperate character. If the appeal of an accused who was sentenced to life
imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding seven years had not been decided within
a period of two years of his conviction, the Appellate Court though could
release him on bail, but court could refuse to release him on bail for “reasons
to be recorded in writing”. Court while refusing to suspend the sentence on
statutory ground was not supposed to touch the merits of the case, but Court
could “take into consideration the evidence collected for purpose of
determining whether the accused was a criminal of the categories prescribed in
S.426(1-A CrPC”. SENTENCE NOT SUSPENDED
NLR 2002 CrLJ 328. Said Wali V/S
Haji Nazir Gul (Peshawar DB).
S.426(1-A) CrPC. Convict seeking
suspension of sentence cannot make any mileage from use of word “shall” in
S.426(1A) as words “for reasons to be recorded by it in writing” appearing
after the word “shall” leave no room for doubt that discretion of Appellate
Court has not been taken away. Appellate Court is still vested U/S 426(1A) with
discretion to decline suspension of sentence in delay related appeal after
recording reasons. (2) S.426(1A). Disposal related delay in deciding appeal
against conviction does not create any right for convict for suspension of his
sentence. (3) Huge backlog, horrendous increase in litigation and present
working strength of High Court are the causes of not disposal of appeals
against conviction within prescribed time. Such delay would be no ground for
suspension of sentence of convict. CONVICTION NOT SUSPENDED
2003 SCMR 407. Adil Bashir V/S The
State (SC.DB)
S.302 PPC. S.426 CrPC. Suspension of
sentence - Appreciation of evidence - While dilating upon and deciding an
application U/S 426 CrPC, appraisal of evidence in depth is neither warranted
nor desirable. Court in this regard should confine itself to the judgment
assailed before it giving due consideration and weight to the reasonable and
legal views expressed by the trial court but all attempts should be made neither
to reappraise the evidence nor to enter into the merits of the case. LEAVE
REFUSED.
2004 MLD 1883. Nawaz Ahmad & 4 Others V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/34 PPC. Accused had not caused
any injury to any of deceased and accused had only been saddled with responsibility
of causing a fire-arm injury on the neck of prosecution witness, but that
prosecution witness was not produced before trial court as a witness and had
been given up by prosecution as having been won over. Trial court had itself
concluded that it was a case of a sudden occurrence without any premediation.
Six accused persons had themselves received injuries during said incident which
injuries had been completely suppressed in FIR and had not been explained by
prosecution before trial court. Question regarding sharing of common object by
accused with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious
liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused, in peculiar
circumstances, were questions which would require serious consideration at the
time of hearing of appeal. BAIL GRANTED/SENT. SUSPENDED.
PLD 2004 Lahore 79. Muhammad Shahid
Farooq @ Shahda V/S The State (DB)
S.302/34/109/148/149 PPC. Accused
had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged occurrence and he
stood saddled with responsibility of indulging in in ineffective firing only.
Nothing had been recovered from possession of accused during investigation.
I.O. had found that accused was not armed with any weapon during the
occurrence. Accused had already spent more than two years in jail in connection
with the case. Question regarding sharing of common intention by the accused
with his co-accused also question regarding his vicarious liability for the
offence allegedly committed by his co-accused were questions which would
require serious re-consideration at the time of hearing of main appeal. SENT.
SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
2004 SCMR 12. Amjad Hassan Gurchani
V/S Sajjad Haider Khan & another (SC.DB)
S.302(b)/34 PPC. Suspension of
sentence. Power of High Court. During the pendency of appeal High Court cannot
release a convict on bail in view of the exclusion of application of S.426 CrPC
by S.7(1) of the STA (Special Courts) Act 1975. High Court can only exercise
its jurisdiction U/S 561-A CrPC in the cases of hardship, such as pendency of
appeal of convict for a number of years either on account of delaying tactics
on the part of the prosecution agency or because of heavy work load of the
court and also if accused was suffering from ailment of the nature detrimental
to life. BAIL GRANTED
2004 SCMR 1153.Khalid Hussain V/S
Abdul Razzaq (SC.DB)
S.302(b) PPC. S.426 CrPC. High Court
through the impugned order had suspended the sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded to accused U/S 302(b) PPC. Accused had neither caused any injury to the
deceased nor to any prosecution witness and he himself had received two serious
sharp-edged weapon injuries which had not been explained by the prosecution.
Discretion exercised by the High Court U/S 426 did not suffer from any
illegality or legal infirmity. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.
2006 MLD 511. Muhammad Tariq V/S The
State (Lahore)
S.302(b)/308 PPC. Applicant had
submitted that at the time of occurrence, he being 15 years of age, he should
have been convicted U/S 308 PPC instead of S.302(b) PPC which was punishable
with imprisonment of 14 years and that he had already undergone his sentence of
17/18 years. Contention raised by applicant regarding contradictions in ocular
account and others, would be seen at the time of disposal of main appeal.
Report of jail authorities showed that applicant/accused had already served a
substantial portion of his sentence and his unexpired portion of sentence of 25
years was only 6 years and appeal was not likely to be fixed in the near
future. SAuch aspect had entitled applicant for suspension of his sentence.
Application granted. SENTENCE SUSPENDED AND BAIL GRANTED.
2006 PCrLJ 853. Muhammad Imran &
another V/S The State (Lahore)
S.302/201/202/323/319/34 PPC. Sentence
awarded in case was short one (five years). Incident was an accidential one and
hearing of appeal could take some time. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2006 PCrLJ 1568. Muhammad Arshad V/S
The State (Lahore)
S.302(B)/34 PPC. Conflict was found
between ocular account and medical evidence. Motive part of story and alleged
recovery from accused had not been bvelieved. Evidence on basis of which
accused had been convicted and sentenced, needed reappraisal during course of
hearing of main appeal. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/bail/BAIL GRANTED.
2003 SCMR 1695. Manzoor @ Tiwana V/S
The State (SC.FB)
S.302(b) PPC. Suspension of
sentence. Ground urged for suspension of sentence of accused before the High
Court in the freshapplication was admittedly available when the previous application
was dismissed by the High Court. All the grounds presently urged had already
been argued in the previous application. Accused was attributed the role of
stabbing the deceased repeatedly and contention regarding his innocence
required reappraisal of evidence which could be done at the time of hearing of
appeal. LEAVE REFUSID.
PLD 2006 SC 483.
S.302(b) PPC. (1) Power of Appellate
Court U/S 426(1) CrPC is not limited and court may, pending disposal of appeal,
suspend sentence of a convict in an appropriate case in its discretion for good
and sufficient reasons but such power of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail is not wider than that U/S 497 CrPC. Unless it is shown that conviction is
based on no evidence or being based on inadmissible evidence, is not ultimately
sustainable, grant of bail U/S 426 without consideration or ascertaining
question of guilt or innocence on merits through appraisal of evidence is not
justified as bail either U/S 497 or 426(1) cannot be allowed only on the basis
of tentative assessment of evidence. (2) Tentative assessment of evidence.
Minor contradictions. Accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
by trial court for causing one of the fatal blows to deceased. High Court
refused to suspend his sentence. Plea raised by the accused was that there was
material contradiction of medical evidence with ocular account which would lead
to definite result of his ultimate acquittal. Accused raised the plea that
injuries sustained by accused strongly suggested that defence plea was more
plausible and nearer to truth, therefore, there was every possibility of his
success in appeal. Validity. Accused on the basis of minor contradictions and
discrepancies in prosecution evidence, made an attempt to make out a case for
suspension of sentence. Grounds taken in support of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail could not be appreciated without detailed scrutiny of evidence
and such exercise could not be undertaken by Supreme Court at such stage. LEAVE
REFUSED. (3) Difference existed between tentative assessment and deep appraisal
of evidence and rule was that Appellate Court, could, on the basis of tentative
assessment for reasons to be recorded, suspend the sentence and grant bail to a
convict but exercise of power to grant bail through suspension of sentence on
the basis of deep appraisal of evidence was against the principle governing
exercise of power U/S 426(1) CrPC. Appellate court should not go deep into the
evidence for the purpose of suspension of sentence by giving reasons which
might amount to expressing its views on the merits of the case prejudicing the
case of one or the other party in appeal. Accused was granted bail U/S 426(1)
CrPC in improper exercise of discretion. Supreme Court converted petition for
leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the order passed by High Court,
whereby sentence of the accused was suspended. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2007 MLD 1066.Muhammad Yasin V/S The
State & another (Lahore)
S.302(b) PPC. Suspension of
sentence. Fatal injury to injured was attributed to father of petitioner.
Petitioner was allegedly armed with a pistol which he did not use during the
occurrence. Case being fit for further appreciation of evidence. SENTENCE
SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
2007 SCMR 184. Babar Ali V/S Bashir
Ahmad & another
S.302(b)/34 & 429 PPC. S.426
CrPC. Power of Appellate Court U/S 426 CrPC. Accused/Appellant was convicted
and sentenced to life imprisonment by trial court. High Court, on appeal, while
suspending the operation of sentence released accused on bail.
Complainant/respondent called in question the order passed by High Court for
the reason that power given to Appellate Court U/S 426 was to be sparingly
exercised especially in cases where convict had been sentenced to life
imprisonment. Accused while supporting order passed by High Court contended
that he was found innocent during police investigation and also that his
criminal liability under provisions of Penal Code, was yet to be determined.
Observation of High Court that case required further inquiry for determination
whether offence committed by accused would be covered by S.429 PPC or it would
also fall within scope of S.302 PPC at bail stage amounted to giving undue
benefit to accused which was likely to adversely affect prosecution case during
proceedings of appeal before High Court. While granting bail or suspending
sentence awarded to a convict, Court was not required to express opinion as to
under what provisions of law, the convict was likely be found guilty or whether
his case was to come within scope of a particular section. Evidence produced by
prosecution established that accused/appellant armed with Klashnikov had come
to the scene of occurrence along with principal accused and fired a burst at
deceased and the cow, which conduct and action of accused/appellant was
considered by trial court as his sharing common intention with principal
accused for causing death of deceased. Finding of Investigating Officer which
had not have any binding value, had been disbelieved by trial court. Appellate
Court, no doubt, had power to suspend the sentence of accused but the same was
to be exercised with due care and caution and satisfactory and cogent reasons
were required for suspending the sentence especially in respect of sentence of
life imprisonment. No exception circumstances had been highlighted by High
Court in its order. Petition converted into appeal and was allowed. ORDER
PASSED BY HIGH COURT WAS SET-ASIDE.
NLR 2008 CrLJ 210. Allah Din V/S
Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Lahore (DB)
S.7(h) & 25(8) Anti-Terrorism
Act 1997. The spirit/theme of Anti-Terrorism Act is to provide speedy justice,
that is why under S.25(5) the Appellate Court (High Court) is required to
decide appeal within seven days and thus debars High Court from releasing
convict by suspending his sentence during pendency of his appeal in High Court.
It seems that the legislator while making provisions of S.25(8) has ignored the
fact that if appeal is not decided within seven days’ period prescribed in
S.25(5) and appeal remains pending in High Court for many years as is the
normal case due to workload of High Court, what kind of relief should be
available to convict if conviction/sentence recorded against him os coram non
judice, or sentence is short or he is suffering from ailment which could not be
treated in jail. (2) S.25(8) Despite the bar under S.25(8) against release of
convict during pendency of his appeal against conviction/sentence recordd
against him by Anti-Terrorism Court, High Court is not deprived of
authority/jurisdiction under Art.199 to release a convict during pendency of
his appeal before High Court by suspending sentence, recorded against convict
by Anti-Terrorism Court. High Court may suspend sentence of convict under
Art.199 of the Constitution during pendency of his appeal before High Court
when satisfied, that (1) case against convict is coram non judice case, (2)
there is inordinate delay in disposal of appeal, (3) sentence is short, (4)
there is no possibility of hearing of appeal of convict in near future, or (5)
convict has developed an ailment which cannot be treated in jail of nature and
by keeping him in jail may result in his death. (3) Provisions of S.25(8)
constituting a bar for High Court to suspend sentence of convict during
pendency 9of appeal against conviction/sentence filed before it are harsh in
nature and contrary to principles of natural justice. These harsh provisions of
S.25(8) require suitable amendments. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
PLD 2008 Lahore 306. Jamshed Ali V/S
The State
S.302(b)/34 PPC. Suspension of
sentence. No overt act was attributed to accused in the FIR and his presence on
the spot at the time of occurrence was only shown. Although accused was
allegedly armed with a sun, yet neither the same was used by him during the
incident nor was it recovered during investigation. Deceased was done to death
at the dead of the night and the FIR was lodged with a delay of four and a half
hours. No chance of early hearing of appeal of accused was in sight. Accused
being an old man of 71 years was an infirm person and the principles enshrined
under S.497 could be considered while deciding an application under S.426 CrPC.
(2) S.426, 496 & 497 CrPC. Powers conferred under S.426 CrPC are not
controlled by the provisions of S.496 & 497 CrPC but the principles
enshrined therein can be taken into consideration while deciding applications
under S.426 CrPC. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
PLD 1995 Karachi 209 Shah Hussain
V/S The State
S.320 PPC. S.426 CrPC. Suspension of
sentence. Accused, a Mini Bus driver, in a case of fatal accident had been
convicted and sentenced U/S 320 PPC and his appeal against his conviction and
sentence had been admitted. Offence being bailable accused after admission of
his appeal was entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. SENT. SUSPENDED/BAIL
GRANTED.
2006 PCrLJ 1534. Iftikhar Hussain
V/S The State (Lahore)
S.320/337-G PPC. Sentence recorded
against accused was short and substantial part thereof had already been
undergone by accused and also it was not certain as to when criminal revision
by accused would be taken up for hearing. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
2005 MLD 1812. Muhammad Anwar V/S
The State (Lahore DB)
S.324 PPC. Accused was attributed
firing in the air and injured had not attributed the injury to accused. Case of
accused was fit for consideration as it would be too harsh to keep accused in
death cell till hearing of appeal which was likely to take a long time.
SENTENCE SUSPENDED AND BAIL GRANTED
2005 MLD 1934. Zahid Hussain V/S The
State (Lahore)
S.324/337-D PPC. Sentence awarded to
accused was short (5 years) and hearing of appeal could take some time.
SENTENCE SUSPENDED AND BAIL GRANTED.
PLD 2008 Lahore (DB) 74.Allah Din
& others V/S Special Judge ATC Lahore
S.324/34 & 353/34 PPC. Both the
accused (brothers) were alleged to have made firing at the police party but
admittedly none of the police officials had secured any injury during the
occurrence. Sentence of both the accused was short i.e. maximum three years
major portion of which had already been undergone by them. Hearing of appeals
of the accused in near future was not possible. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2002 MLD 1040. Muhammad Mansha &
another V/S The State (Lahore)
S.337-L(2) & 149 PPC. Suspension
of sentence pending appeal. Sentences of imprisonment passed against accused
were relatively short and their right of appeal was likely to be frustrated in
case they would undergo a substantial part of their sentences of imprisonment
before their appeal could be heard by court. Both accused had already spent
about six months in jail after their conviction by trial court and about a year
prior to their conviction. SENT.SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
NLR 2004 SD 1171. Muhammad Ali V/S
The State (Lahore)
S.337A(2)337F(1)337L(2)/337H(2)/440/148/149
PPC. S.426 CrPC. Convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment would be
entitled to suspension of his sentence under the rule of consistency when
sentence of life imprisonment awarded to his co-convict has already been
suspended and such order of suspension has been upheld by Supreme Court.
SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2008 PCrLJ 438. Ghulam Muhammad
& 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore)
S.337-A(i)/337-A(iv)/427/341/147/149
PPC. S.426 CrPC. Sentences awarded to the petitioners were short and before the
criminal revision was fixed for final hearing, it was quite possible that the
petitioners could have served their entire sentence. Petitioner for suspension
of sentence was accepted and the sentence of the petitioners was suspended and
they were admitted to bail. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
PLJ 2008 Lahore-DB 565. Allah Din
V/S Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court
S.6 & 7 Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
S.341/355/386/365 PPC. Petitioners had already served out more than one and
half year of their sentence. Possibility of hearing of appeal in the near
future was not within sight. BAIL GRANTED.
NLR 2004 SD 579. Husnain Raza @ Jani
V/S The State (FSC)
S.377 PPC. Sentence of two and half
years imposed on convicts by trial court after their conviction for sodomy U/S
377 suspended by FSC on ground that convicts had already undergone substantial
portions of their sentence. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
PD 2008 Lahore (DB) 74. Allah Din
& Others V/S Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court
S.386/34, 355/34 & 341 PPC.
Trial Court vide the impugned judgment had already acquitted the accused from
the charge under S.365-A. Accused had almost undergone the sentences of
imprisonment for the offences under S.355 & 341 PPC. Prima facie, evidence
on record was not sufficient to attract the provisions of S.386 PPC. Accused
had already served out more than one and a half years of their sentence of
imprisonment and possibility of hearing of their appeal in the near future was
not within sight. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
PLD 2003 Karachi 398. Muhammad Usman
Farooqui V/S The State (DB)
S. 409/109 PPC.
S.382-B/397/426/561-A CrPC. Application for suspension of sentence. Reference
to Accountability Court. Accused was tried in three references by
Accountability court and in first two references was awarded sentence to suffer
RI for seven years with fine in each reference while in third reference he was
con victed and awarded sentence to suffer RI for twelves years and fine.Accused
was arrested on 5-9-1996 and benefit of S.382-B had separately been extended to
the accused in all the three cases. Report received from jail authorities
showed that actual period spent in jail by the accused in each case was 6
years, 5 months and 10 days. Even if substantive sentence awarded to the
accused in first two references were allowed to run consecutively in terms of
S.397 CrPC then as per report of jail authorities, the accused already not only
had served substantive sentences awarded to him, but over and above he had
still more than ten years period oto his credit which could be deducted from
the substantive sentence of twelves years awarded to him in third reference. If
only the remission earned by the accused after his first conviction or marginal
portion of total remission earned by the accused was to be taken into
consideration, even then it could be evident that the accused had already
served substantive sentence of seven years' RI. in each case. Besides, by
virtue of S.32(b) of the NAB Ordinance 1999 specific period of 30 days had been
prescribed for disposal of appeals filed by the accused but for no fault of the
accused said appeals were still pending for disposal for almost the past two
years. For said delay the accused could not be penalized and incarcerated for
an indefinite period. Pending appeals, sentences of imprisonment and fine
awarded to the accused, were suspended. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2003 PCrLJ 1714. Ghulam Sarwar V/S
The) State (Lahore)
S.420/468/471 PPC. S.5(2) Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947.S.426 & 497 CrPC. Application for suspension of
sentence. Accused was convicted U/S 471 PPC and was sentenced to two years’ RI
with fine. Said offence according to Second Schedule to CrPC was bailable. Same
principles would govern question of suspension or otherwise of the sentence as
were relevant for grant of bail to the accused U/S 497 CrPC. Case for
suspension of sentence having been made out, application of accused was
accepted and sentence of accused was suspended pending disposal of his appeal
and he was directed to be released on bail. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
NLR 2004 SD 1137. Malik Nazir Ahmad
& another V/S The State (Bahawalpur)
S.468 PPC. S.426 CrPC. Sentence of
one year’s R.I. imposed by trial court after conviction of accused for offences
U/S 420/468/471 PPC r/w/ S.5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 suspended by
High Court by accepting application of convicts on ground that sentence was
short and their appeal against conviction/sentence pending in High Court was
not likely to be heard in near future. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
PLJ 2008 SC 233. Makhdoom Javed
Hashmi V/S The State
S.124-A, 468, 469, 471, 500, 505(a),
131 and 109 PPC. Accused who has already undergone almost half of his sentence
may seek suspension of sentence in the interest of justice. If ultimately the
appeal of accused is dismissed by the appellate court, provisions of S.426(3)
CrPC would come in operation and the period of suspension of sentence shall
find excluded and he would have to undergo the sentence awarded to accused by
Court. BAIL GRANTED.
2001 MLD 1251. Muzaffar Ali V/S The
State (Lahore DB).
S.9(c) Control of Narcotics Sub.Act
1997. S.426 CrPC. Suspension of sentence, pending appeal, against convition,
had been sought on the ground that nothing was recovered from the accused
during the investigation of the case; that reliable and trustworthy evidence produced
by the accused had been ignored by the trial court without any plausible reason
and that statutory period for the disposal of appeal had expired and the
accused had earned the right of bail. Huge quantity of narcotics was recovered
from the accused. Grounds agitated by the accused for suspension of sentence,
required deeper appreciation which was not appropriate/permissible at such
stage. SENTENCE NOT SUSPENDED
NLR 2003 CrLJ 598. Mst. Manan @ Nazir Mai V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.9(b) Cont. of Nar. Sub. Act 1997.
426 & 497 CrPC. Same principles which govern the grant or otherwise of bail
U/S 497 CrPC would be applicable to the suspension of sentence U//S 426.
Convict whose husband has been murdered and has five children to look after
would be entitled to suspension of sentence awarded to her U/S 9(b) of Control
of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2006 PCrLJ 993. Muneer Ahmed & 2
Others V/S The State (Karachi DB)
S.9(b) Cont. of Nar. Sub. Act 1997.
Sentence was short (three years) and accused had already remained behind the
bars for over two months while appeal was not likely to be heard and decided in
near future. State Counsel had no objection to the suspension of sentence.
SENT, SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
2008 PCrLJ 674. Fayyaz Masih V/S The
State (Lahore DB)
S.9(b) Control of Narcotics
Substances Act, 1997. Allegation against accused was that 400 grams of charas
was recovered from him. Accused, who was convicted and sentenced for six
months, had served out imprisonment for one month and 16 datys. Accused had
already been given the benefit of S.382-B CrPC. Sentence awarded to accused
being short, he was enlarged on bail. BAIL GRANTED
PLJ 2008 SC 322. Khalid Mehmood Butt
& another V/S The State
S.9(C ) control of Narcotic
Substances Act 1997. Recovery of small amount of narcotics from petitioners.
Two conflicting reports relating to material in question. Petitioners were in
jail since 21.3.2001. No likelihood of petitioner’s appeal being heard in near
future. Petitioners have made out a case for suspension of their sentences.
BAIL GRANTED.
PLD 2009 Lahore (DB) 632. Mubarak
Ali V/S The State
S.426 CrPC. S.9 (c ) CNS Act 1997.
Suspension of sentence -- Practice and procedure -- Scope --- Appellate court
while deciding petition for suspension of sentence would not undertake
reappraisal of entire evidence but would confine its consideration to the
infirmities in the judgment of trial court with reference to the grounds urged
in the memo of appeal, which would show that conviction was not sustainable in
law, and on reaching such conclusion Appellate Court can suspend sentence.
While suspending sentence Appellate Court can also consider the fact that the
sentence awarded was short and the appeal was not likely to be disposed of
soon. (2) Section 426(1) CrPC is not divided into categories or classes as
S.497(1) CrPC. There is no concept of offences falling in probibitory clause in
S.426 CrPC as provided in S.497. Court while considering a bail application
under S.497 is conscious of peresumption of innocence in favour of accused,
whereas no such presumption exists in favour of a convict having been found
guilty by a competent court. Under S.497(1) bail is generally granted as a rule
in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause and refusal is an exception,
whereas no such demarcation is made in S.426(1). Court in both sections has
discretion but language of the same shows that discretion under section 497(1)
is more liberal and lenient than under S.426(1). Leniency becomes more
stringent in cases where a convict seeks suspension of his sentence in narcotic
cases in view of effect of S.51 & 47 of the CNS Act 1997 or S.497 read with
S.426 CrPC. PETITION DISMISSED.
2003 SCMR 22.Khan Muhammad Mahar V/S
The State (SC.DB)
S.10 NAB Ordinance 1999. Accused
according to jail authorities had already undergone substantive sentence of his
imprisonment and the decision of his appeal was not likely to take place in
near future. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2006 SCMR 1225. Peer Mukarram-Ul-Haq
V/S National Accountability Bureau (SC.DB)
S.9 NAB Ordinance 1999. S.496, 497
& 426 CrPC. Bail on medical ground. Petitioner had undergone a substantive
portion of sentence and the medical certificates were indicative of the ailment
which appeared to be somewhat serious. Medical opinion furnished by Medical
specialist had recommended shifting of petitioner to some care health facility
where a team of Specialists in Diabetes, Neuro-physicians and Cardiologist were
available. Petitioner, during the recent past, was hospitalized and remained
under treatment in the department of Urology. Held, requisite medical
facilities, modern techniques, uptodate operation skill and know-how were not
available in the District Headquarter Hospitals which aspect of the matter
could not be ignored. Grant of bail and suspension of sentence though was a
discretionary matter but such discretion should be exercised in accordance with
substantive provisions of law and the principles settled by the Supreme Court.
Suspension of sentence might be refused but in such an eventuality it would be
mandatory for the High Court to assign reasoning which could not be done by
disposing of the constitutional petition preferred by the petitioner and such
order of the High Court could not be equated to that of a "firm" or
:well-reason" order. Where the High Court had not assigned any reasoning
for disposal of the constitutional petition, such order of the High Court could
not be termed as speaking order and was also not in consonance with the law
laid down by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court converted the petition into
appeal and accepted the same and petitioner was directed to be released on bail
on furnishing surety of the specified amount. Petitioner was directed to
surrender his passport in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court and
his name was directed to be p0laced on exit list till disposal of his appeal
penbding before the High Court. (2) S.426/496/497 CrPC. Power conferred U/S 426
CrPC is not controlled by the provisions of S.496 and 497 CrPC but the
principles enuniciated therein can be taken into consideration while granting
or refusing bail. BAIL GRANTED.
PLD 2009 SC 388. Anwar-Ul-Haq V/S
National Accountability Bureau
S.426 CrPC. S.10(a) NAB Ordinance
1999. Art.185(3) of Constitution. Accused had been awarded a sentence of ten
years' R.I. with benefit of S.382-B CrPC. After counting the remissions towards
the sentence of accused he was found to have already undergone major portion of
his sentence. When appeal against the conviction of accused keeps on pending
for a long period without his fault, his sentence has to be suspended. Petition
for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and sentence of
accused was suspended. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2007 MLD 1278. Anwar & another
V/S The State (Karachi)
Accused remained on bail during
trial and allegation against him was of aerial firing. Sentence of accused was
suspended with the consent of State counsel. Co-accused was suffering from TB
and was bleeding from mouth with cough, which was not only serious for him, but
also dangerous for other inmates of the jail. Sentence of co-accused was also
suspended. SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
NLR 2007 CrLJ 488.Babar Ali V/S
Bashir Ahmad & another (SC)
S.426 CrPC. It is settled law that
in granting bail or suspending sentence awarded to a convict, the Court is not
required to express as to under what provision of law the convict would be
likely to be found guilty or whether case against convict does not come within
scope of particular section of PPC. High Court would not be justified in
suspending life imprisonment with observation that case required further
inquiry for determination whether offence committed by convict would be covered
by S.429 PPC or it would also fall U/S 302 PPC. BAIL BOND CANCELLED.
PLD 2008 Lahore (DB) 74.Allah Din
& Others V/S Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court
S.7(h) Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
Accused and his co-accused had allegedly quarrlled with their opposite party in
the High Court premises and given kicks and fist blows to them. FIR was
absolutely silent about use of fire arms during the occurrence, nor the
occurrence had taken place at any place of worship. Provisions of S.7(h) of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, were not attracted in the circumstances of
the case, which called for reappraisal of evidence. (2) S.25(8) Anti-Terrorism
Act 1997. Despite the bar under S.25(8), High Court can release a convict on
bail during the pendency of his appeal. Jealously guarding its authority qua
the grant of relief to an aggrieved/deserving person by the court of competent
jurisdiction is very natural. Spirit/Theme of the 1997 Act is to provide speedy
justice that is why under S.25(5) the Appellate Tribunal is required to decide
the appeal within seven days and thus debarring the Appellate Authority from
releasing the convict on bail during the pendency of his appeal was
understandable, but it seems that the Legislature while making the said
provisions of law has ignored that if the appeal is not decided within the said
period and remained pending for many years due to heavy workload of the court,
then what kind of relief is available to the convict if otherwise his case is
that of corum-non-judice, or short sentence or when the convict is suffering
from ailment which could not be treated in the jail hospital. Inordinate delay
in prosecution of criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law/court and in
such like situation accused/convict earns the right for the grant of bail.
SENTENCE SUSPENDED/BAIL GRANTED.
2008 PCrLJ 671. Muhammad Iqbal V/S
The State (FSC)
S.10 Zina Ordinance. Co-accused had
been acquitted, while accused alone had been convicted U/S 10(3) on the same
set of evidence. Conviction of accused and acquittal of co-accused, in
circumstances, seemed to be self-contradictory. Application filed by accused
for suspension of sentence, was allowed. SENTENCE SUSPENDED.
2008 SCMR 1204. Liaquat Ali V/S Mst.
Khalida Parveen & Others (SC Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction)
S.11 Offences of Qazf (E.H.) Ord.
1979. S.426 CrPC. Request for suspension of sentence on the part of those who
had uttered slander about ladies was mockery. Holy Quran takes the most serious
notice of such people and says: “Flog them with eighty stripes, And reject
their evidence (Shahadah). Ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors”
(Sura Al-Noor:4)—Indeed Holy Quran regards life devoid of morality,
meaningless. Divine Law has to be followed in social affairs sincerely. No
ground was made out for suspension of sentence. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED
2009 PCrLJ 257. Atta Ullah @ Hasnain
@ Hassan V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.426(2-B)CrPC. S.25(8) ATC Act
1997. (2) S.426(2-B) CrPC. S.13(a)(c )) & 13(b) Arms Ord. S. 4 & 5
Explosive Substance Act 1884, S.7 Surrender of Illicit Arms Ord.1991. Discretion
had been left with the court to suspend the sentence of a convict who had been
granted leave to appeal by the Supremem Court “if it would think fit according
to the facts and circumstances of the case”. Mere fact that petitioner had been
granted leave to appeal, would not, ipso facto, give him right to seek the
suspension of sentenceHuge quangtity of illicit arms in the shape of a
Kalashinkov, 3 magazines, 56 bullets and 2 hand-grenades, were recovered from
the petitioner; and two courts had concurrently found him guilty, of the said
offence and at that stage, it could not be said that such huge quantity was
planted by the police to implicate the petitioner falsely. No special
circumstances had been urged for suspension of sentence. Since the matter was pending
before the Supreme Court, any more comments could prejudice the case of the
petitioner before the apex Court. PETITION DISMISSE
