GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by Ghulam Abbas seeking the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his release on bail pending the disposal of his appeal. The core legal questions involved whether a convicted person can be released on bail by suspending their sentence under section 91 or section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether principles of pre-trial bail apply to post-conviction sentence suspension. The Lahore High Court held that section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is inapplicable to a convicted person, and while principles of bail apply to suspension of sentence under section 426, the applicant was not entitled to bail given the fatal role ascribed to him and the prohibition against deep appraisal of evidence at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 aims merely to secure attendance and cannot be used to suspend a sentence after conviction.
- Can section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to suspend a sentence and release a convicted person on bail?
- Are the same principles governing pre-trial bail applicable when considering the suspension of a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding an application for suspension of sentence?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 496, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Applicant Ghulam Abbas, through the instant application has sought for suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending disposal of his above mentioned appeal.
2. He vide the judgment delivered on 27-2-2004 by Mr. Muhammad Alamgir Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing the Qatal-e-Amd of deceased Muhammad Afzal and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Ta'zir and to pay Rs,1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that as he has been convicted and sentenced in a private complaint and so he may be released on bail by suspending his sentence in accordance with the spirit of section 91, Cr.P.C.; that the same principles as are relevant for release of an accused on bail under sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Will govern the question of suspension of sentence of a convict; that the learned trial Court while convicting him observed that his innocence is doubtful and the same means that it was not confident that he is guilty and so the benefit of such observation ought to have been given to him by way of acquittal instead of conviction; that he in no way, even remotely has been related/linked with the motive; that the deceased was not Masoomud-Dam and rather of dubious character and so he possibly might have been killed by some person aggrieved of his conduct and character; and that in any case, his conviction and sentence ultimately is not liable to be maintained due to the charge having not been proved against him beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and so he may be released on bail by suspending his sentence.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that the prosecution as per it's ocular account supported by the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence has successfully proved the charge against him and so he has rightly been convicted and sentenced.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the copy of the impugned judgment.
6. It has appeared from the impugned judgment that he has been ascribed fatal shot to the deceased. The same also shows that he after due appreciation of the evidence available on the record was found guilty of the Qatal-e-Amd of the deceased and so was convicted and sentenced in the manner as mentioned above. It was only about 4-1/2 months back.
7. The contention that he may be released on bail by suspending his sentence by taking bond from him for appearance according to the spirit of section 91, Cr.P.C. Is absolutely misconceived. It is because of the fact that the object of that provision of law is only to secure the attendance/appearance of a person, whose presence may be required by Court in relation to some matter before it. The position in the case of the applicant is altogether different inasmuch as that he after due appreciation of the evidence available on the record was found guilty of the charge of Qatal-e-Amd of the deceased and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
So, the provision of section 91, Cr.P.C. Cannot be attracted in his case for suspending his sentence and release on bail.
8. As regards the contention that the same principles will be applicable in considering the question of suspension of sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C. As are relevant for grant or otherwise of bail with reference to sections 496/ 497/198, Cr.P.C. No .Doubt is with force but the position is that the applicant in view of the above act ascribed to him in the commission of the offence is not entitled to be released on bail by suspending his sentence.
9. The other contentions raised on his behalf in fact require appraisal of the evidence on the record and it's deeper appreciation for determination, which exercise cannot be undertaken at such a stage.
10. In these circumstances, I find that no case for suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail has been made out. The application, therefore, is dismissed.