ILYAS alias BILLU vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the petitioner, Ilyas alias Billu, seeking the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending his appeal. The petitioner was convicted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine by the trial court. The core legal question was whether a short sentence warrants the suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail when the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, holding that the petitioner was awarded a short sentence of five years, that his appeal was unlikely to be heard soon, and that no opposition was raised by the State. The court laid down the principle that the execution of a short sentence may be suspended and the convict released on bail pending appeal when early hearing of the appeal is improbable.
- Whether execution of a short sentence can be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending the decision of an appeal?
- Does the unlikelihood of an appeal being heard in the near future constitute a sufficient ground for suspending a sentence?
- Can bail be granted upon the suspension of a short sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this application under section 426, Cr.P.C. The petitioner namely Ilyas alias Billu seeks suspension of sentence, who was convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default of non- payment of fine, to further undergo six months' S.-I. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Vehari, vide judgment, dated 28-4-2007, passed in case F.I.R. No. 300, dated 7-12:2005, offence under section 9-C ibid, registered with Police Station, Danewal. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is short and there is no likelihood of hearing of the petitioner's appeal in near future.
3. Conversely, learned State Counsel does not oppose this petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was sentenced only for five years, which is a short sentence. Reliance is placed on Nazeer Ahmad and 2 others v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 657 Karachi) and Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others (1999 SCM R 2589). There is no likelihood of the appeal, being taken up in near future. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also A given to the petitioner.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Is accepted; the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended till the final decision of his appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench Criminal Miscellaneous disposed of.
6. .
Cited by 8 cases
- Muhammad Khalid Javed vs State etc 2022 PLJ Lahore 634
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State 2021 PCrLJ 1517
- Mst. SAFIA BIBI vs STATE etc PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1052
- Naik Muhammad vs The State 2019 PHC 38
- NAIK MUHAMMAD Versus AHMAD YAR KHAN 2019 PCrLJ 886
- AAMIR SHAMAS Versus State 2019 PCrLJ 41
- MURAD BUX Versus State 2016 YLRN 36
- RIZWAN and anothers vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2013 YLR 520