MUHAMMAD IMRAN and another-s vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal petition filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to the petitioners following their conviction under Sections 323 and 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentence pending the hearing of their appeal, given the duration of the sentence and the anticipated delay in the appellate process. The Lahore High Court held that the sentence should be suspended, noting that the case involved an accidental occurrence and that the appeal hearing was unlikely to take place in the immediate future. The court granted the suspension of the sentence, subject to the petitioners furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000 each with one surety. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence is relatively short and the appellate hearing is expected to be delayed, the court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence pending appeal.
- Can a sentence of imprisonment be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the appeal hearing is expected to be delayed?
- Is the fact that a sentence is relatively short a valid ground for the suspension of that sentence pending appeal?
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 202, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners were sentenced to five years' R.I. Each as Tazir under section 323, P.P.C. And each of them were also convicted under section 319, P.P.C. And ordered to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased Jaffar Ali in a private complaint filed by Abdul Hameed under sections 302/202/201/34, P.P.C. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was however, extended to both of them. The instant petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Has been moved for suspension of sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are in jail since the date of judgment; that the sentence is short one and the hearing of appeal may take some time, therefore, the sentence is liable to be suspended and the petitioner may be allowed bail. He has relied on Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1999 SCM R 2589; Zahid Hussain v. The State 2005 M LD 1934 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 learned trial Court has already shown leniency and that the petitioners have not been awarded full dose of sentence, therefore they are not entitled to the relief, being sought.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The sentence is short one. This is an accidental case and hearing of the appeal may take some time. The sentence awarded to the petitioners is suspended subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R.(J.) of this Court.