MUHAMMAD SAJID vs THE STATE
This application was brought before the Lahore High Court seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for recovery of 500 grams of charas, receiving a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core question before the Court was whether the sentence of the petitioner should be suspended where he had already served half of his total sentence and there was no likelihood of his appeal being heard in the near future. The High Court observed that the petitioner had completed half of his sentence and, if the appeal were decided in routine course, he would serve out the entire term before the appeal could be heard. Consequently, the High Court suspended the sentence and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether a convict's sentence may be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when he has served out half of the total sentence?
- Whether the likelihood of serving out the entire sentence prior to the routine hearing of an appeal constitutes a valid ground for suspension of sentence and bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Seeks suspension of sentence recorded against the appellant vide judgment dated 27-1-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi in case F.I.R. No, 303 of 2002 dated 5-9- 2002, under Articles 3/4 and 4/97 (sic) of PEHO, 1979 and 9(b) of CNSA, 1997 registered with Police Station, Tibba Sultanpur and was sentenced to two years rigorous and a fine of Rs,10,000 for recovery of Charas weighing 500-gram and in default thereof to suffer further two months simple imprisonment. He was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 5-9-2002 and he has served out one half of the sentence and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal and in case the appeal is decided in routine, he will serve out his entire sentence, therefore, his sentence be suspended.
3-A. The learned State counsel has not opposed the petition.
4. In view of the above position, he has served out one half of his sentence. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal and till the decision of the appeal, in routine he will serve out his entire sentence. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount during the pendency of the appeal for the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.