ZAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Zahid Hussain, seeking the suspension of his sentence pending the hearing of his appeal. The petitioner had been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 337-D and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the sentence of the petitioner should be suspended, considering the duration of the sentence and the time already spent in custody. The Court, after hearing both parties, observed that the sentence was relatively short and that the hearing of the appeal was likely to take significant time. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence. The Court granted the relief, ordering the suspension of the sentence subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the Court. This decision reinforces the principle that courts may exercise discretion to suspend short sentences when the appellate process is delayed.
- Can a sentence be suspended pending the hearing of an appeal if the sentence is considered short?
- Does the delay in the hearing of an appeal constitute a valid ground for the suspension of a sentence?
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2005. , ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Zahid Hussain petitioner was sentenced to five years' R.I. Along with Arsh Rs.90,600 under section 337-D in case F.I.R. No.189 dated 14-8-2002 registered at Police Station Sadar Rajanpur and was also sentenced to five years' R.I. Under section 324, P.P.C. The petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Has been moved for suspension of the sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in jail since 28-8-2002 and that the sentence is short and the hearing of appeal could take sometime, therefore, the sentence being short may be suspended and the petitioner may be allowed bail. Reliance is placed upon Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah (1999 SCM R 2589) and Nazir Ahmad v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 657).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the trial Court has already shown leniency and that the petitioner has not been awarded full dose of sentence, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief, being sought.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State and perused the record.
5. As the sentence is short and the hearing of the appeal may take some time, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R.(J) of this Court.