MUHAMMAD ATIF and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application filed by the appellants seeking the suspension of their sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of their criminal appeal. The core legal question presented was whether the appellants were entitled to post-conviction bail given the evidentiary deficiencies alleged by the defense, specifically the absence of the complainant's testimony and the lack of proof regarding the arrest and recovery memos. The court, noting the consent of the State Counsel and observing that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant penal provisions, decided to grant the application. The court held that where the prosecution's case rests on limited evidence and the offence is outside the prohibitory clause, the suspension of sentence and grant of bail is appropriate. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving non-prohibitory offences, particularly where evidentiary gaps exist regarding the prosecution's primary witnesses and recovery proceedings, the court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and release the appellants on bail pending appeal.
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Is the absence of the complainant's testimony a relevant factor for granting bail pending appeal?
1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.--- By application under disposal appellants have prayed for suspension of impugned judgment till the final decision of this criminal appeal. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that it is a case of no evidence. The main witness complainant on whose pointation these appellants were arrested had neither been produced in evidence nor memo of arrest and recovery have been brought on record to prove the guilt against these appellants.
2. Mobile phone which is said to have been shown as stolen property, was owned by co-accused Muhammad Toheed. Besides two police officials there is no eye-witness of the incident.
3. ' In view of the fact as placed by learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sohail Jabbar, State Counsel consented to the grant of application.
4. ' The offence does not fall within prohibitory clause. Hence the appellants are allowed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,'100,000 each with P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
5. ' Adjourned to 4-4-2006 for further hearing.