ABDUL QADIR and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for post-conviction bail filed by the appellant during the pendency of his appeal against a conviction involving life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who had been in custody for over four years while his appeal remained pending due to court congestion, was entitled to bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that bail pending appeal for offences falling under the prohibitory clause cannot be granted unless it is demonstrated that the conviction is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and is not sustainable. The court emphasized that a deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible during bail proceedings under section 426, as the merits of the case must be determined during the final hearing of the appeal. Consequently, the court declined to grant bail but directed the office to fix the main appeal for regular hearing within three months to address the delay in the administration of justice.
- Can bail be granted pending an appeal for an offence falling under the prohibitory clause without a deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Is it permissible to conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence when deciding an application under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the standard for granting bail pending appeal when the conviction is based on evidence that may be challenged?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By this application, the appellant has prayed for releasing him on bail during pendency of appeal.
2. ' The learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned conviction and sentence is opposed to the facts and evidence available on record and that appellant is in custody since last more than 4 years.
3. ' The learned Assistant A.-G. Submits that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and unless the judgment is fully scrutinized, the grant of bail at this stage is not proper.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. It is the right of every litigant that his case should be decided without loss of time. This appeal is pending since 2003 and I have been informed that paper book has been prepared but the case could not be listed for regular hearing due to heavy pendency.
5. ' Bail pending appeals in the offences falling under the prohibitory clause cannot be granted unless it is shown that conviction is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and is not ultimately sustainable. The grant of bail without considering or ascertaining question of guilt or innocence on' merits through appraisal of evidence is not justified. For the above observation reliance is being placed on the reported case of Muhammad Saleem v. The State, PLD 2006 SC 483.
6. ' The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant goes to the root of the 'case which could only be appreciated at the time of hearing of appeal when the entire evidence available on record would be thrashed out. It is also now well-settled principle of law that while hearing an application under section 426, Cr.P.C., deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2003 SCM R 911.
7. ' In view of the above, it will be proper that this application be disposed of with direction to office to fix this matter for regular hearing within 3 months.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State 2012 PCrLJ 387