SHAFQUAT MEHMOOD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court, wherein the appellant sought the suspension of his five-year sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the execution of the sentence should be suspended given the period already spent in custody and the likelihood of a delayed hearing. The Court held that the sentence should be suspended and the appellant released on bail. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant has already served a substantial portion of a modest sentence, has been in custody since trial, and the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future due to judicial backlogs, the remaining sentence may be suspended pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Can the sentence of an appellant be suspended pending the hearing of an appeal when the hearing is likely to take time?
- Whether the period already spent in custody by a convicted person is a valid ground for the suspension of sentence?
- Does a backlog of cases and delayed disposal of appeals justify granting bail and suspending a prison sentence?
ORDER
1. ' Suspension of sentence is prayed on the ground that the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years out of which he has remained in custody for about one year and ten months. The appellant has good case on merits but the hearing of appeal will take time.
2. ' Learned Additional Advocate-General has conceded to the suspension of sentence.
3. The perusal of the judgment reveals that the appellant was arrested on 5-4-2005 and was in custody when the judgment was pronounced.
4. ' Learned counsel states that the appellant remained in custody throughout the trial.
5. ' Keeping in view the backlog of the cases, it was obvious that the appeal could not be possibly disposed of in near future. Remaining portion of sentence is three years.
6. ' In the circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended. He shall be released subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,one hundred thousand and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- AMJAD Versus State 2017 YLRN 190
- TOTO vs The STATE 2016 MLD 1805
- AMMAR FAROOQ vs THE STATE 2013 PLD Sindh 508
- GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State 2012 PCrLJ 387
- MITHO alias MUHAMMAD MITHAL vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 492