GHULAM MURTAZA and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners, convicted under section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court along with an application for suspension of sentence pending the hearing of the revision. The core legal question addressed was whether the execution of a short sentence of imprisonment ought to be suspended when the revision petition is unlikely to be heard in the near future, potentially rendering the remedy infructuous. The court held that where a short sentence is under challenge and the hearing of the revision is likely to be delayed, the sentence should be suspended to prevent the petitioner from serving the substantial part or entirety of the sentence before the merits are adjudicated. The key principle laid down is that suspension of sentence and grant of bail in short sentences is warranted when systemic delays threaten to defeat the right of appeal or revision.
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be suspended when a criminal revision petition is unlikely to be fixed for hearing in the near future?
- Does the serving of a short sentence before the adjudication of a revision petition prejudice the petitioner's valuable right of hearing?
- Can bail be granted upon the suspension of a short sentence subject to furnishing surety bonds?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. JAVED SARFRAZ, J.-The petitioners, Ghulam Murtaza and Ali Ahmad, involved in case bearing F.I.R. No,307 of 2000, dated 6-8-2000 under sections 324, 452, 148 and 149, P.P;C. Registered with Police Station, Zafarwal District hlarowal were tried by learned Magistrate Section-30, Narowal, who vide his judgment dated 27-4-2006 convicted the petitioner under section 452, P.P.C. And sentenced them to 4 years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs, 1,000 each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I. However, they were granted the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal dismissed their appeal while maintaining conviction and sentence. Hence, the revision petition.
2. Through this application, the petitioners seek suspension of their sentence, mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence is short and that revision petition is not likely to be fixed in near future and has apprehension that by the time the same is heard, the petitioners would have served the entire sentence; that the petitioners are innocent and false case has been registered against them and there is a possibility that they are acquitted of the charge.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision is not likely to be fixed in near future and the petitioners would undergo their entire sentence appears to have some weight.
There is a possibility that the present revision may be fixed after 2/3 years and by that time the petitioner would have served his sentence, thus he would have lost his valuable right. The sentence of 5 years is a short sentence as held in "Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others" 1999 SCM R 2589 and "Nazir Ahmad and 2 others v. The State" 2005 PCr.LJ 657 in such-like cases, sentence should be suspended. I am therefore, inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner and he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar Judl of this Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- RIZWAN and anothers vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2013 YLR 520
- Sh. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AKRAMand 8 others vs THE STATE and another 2012 PLD Lahore 224