Muhammad Yousaf vs The State
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition where the petitioner seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, a juvenile nephew of the main accused to whom only a lalkara was attributed and whose role was disbelieved by the trial court via a supplementary statement, makes out a case for suspension of sentence. The court decided to allow the petition, suspending the petitioner's sentence subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the trial court has disbelieved the specific injury role attributed via a supplementary statement and only a lalkara is assigned in the FIR, coupled with the main accused admitting guilt, sufficient grounds exist for suspending the sentence of a youthful offender pending appeal without delving into a deeper appreciation of evidence.
- Whether suspension of sentence should be granted when only a lalkara is attributed to the petitioner and the main accused has admitted guilt?
- Does an observation regarding a disbelieved supplementary statement warrant deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
- Is a youthful petitioner entitled to bail when the trial court has disbelieved the specific role attributed to him?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- ln continuation of my earlier order dated 26.11.2004, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab submits that the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the role attributed to the petitioner i.e. Injury with a Sota on the person of the deceased through a supplementary statement, but the fact remains that the petitioner raised a lalkara and any observation made by this Court at this stage would tantamount deeper appreciation of evidence on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused is uncle of the petitioner; that the petitioner was less than sixteen years of age at the time of occurrence and is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Without going into the merits of the case lest it may prejudice case of either side, sufficient it to say, the petitioner is the nephew of main accused Ashraf, as per F.I.R, only lalkara is attributed to him while the supplementary statement has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court coupled with the fact that the main accused Ashraf has admitted his guilt in his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., this petition is allowed and sentence of the petitioner is suspended subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, lt is clarified that the petitioner shall attend this Court on each and every date of hearing of this appeal.