SAEED AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a five-year sentence awarded to the petitioner, Saeed Ahmed, following his conviction under Sections 201 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the hearing of his appeal, given the duration of the sentence already served and the delay in the appellate process. The Court held that since the petitioner had already served more than one year of his five-year sentence and there was no immediate likelihood of his appeal being fixed for hearing in the near future, the suspension of the sentence was warranted. The Court established the principle that where an appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly, the fact that a significant portion of a short-term sentence has already been served constitutes a valid ground for suspending the sentence and granting bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
- Does the fact that a convict has already served a significant portion of their sentence constitute a valid ground for the suspension of that sentence pending appeal?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Saeed Ahmad seeks suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah vide judgment, dated 27-4-2007 in a case F.I.R. No.73, dated 26-3-2006 registered under sections 302/201/109/34, P.P.C. At Police Station City Layyah, whereby he was convicted under sections 201/109, P.P,C. And sentenced to him five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5000. In case of default in payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner will be heard along with other co-accused who were convicted and sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And essentially will take some time and the petitioner who was awarded the sentence of five years has already served out his sentence of more than a year and that there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in the near future.
3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has opposed this petition by submitting that the petitioner has participated in the occurrence and managed to destroy the proof of murder and the sentence awarded to him is not short one therefore, is not entitled for concession of the suspension of sentence.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to five years out of which he has already served out more than a year which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State and that there is no likelihood of the fixation of the appeal in the near future as according to the Office report the appeals pertaining to the year, 1996 are being fixed for hearing in the current year.
5. In view of the above, this application is allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended. He is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi) of this Court.