Pakistan Case Law
2009 P Cr. L J 257

ATTA ULLAH alias HASNAIN alias HASSAN vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2009 P Cr. L J 257
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,279/M of 2008
Date2008-10-08
Judge(s)Syed Hamid Ali Shah and M.A. Zafar
Authored byM.A. Zafar
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner, convicted under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by an Anti-Terrorism Court, sought suspension of sentence and release on bail under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, following the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court entitles a convict to bail under Section 426(2-B), Cr.P.C., and whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to grant bail in cases tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court after the appeal has been decided. The Court held that the grant of leave to appeal does not ipso facto entitle a convict to bail; the power under Section 426(2-B) is discretionary and depends on the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the bar contained in Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, precludes the High Court from exercising bail jurisdiction in cases tried by Anti-Terrorism Courts, even after the appeal has been decided. The petition was dismissed on merits and maintainability.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court entitle a convict to bail under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to suspend a sentence and grant bail in a case tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court after the appeal has been decided?
  • Is the power to grant bail under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 13-A(2)(c), Arms Ordinance 1965
  • Section 13-B, Arms Ordinance 1965
  • Section 20, Arms Ordinance 1965
  • Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991
  • Section 21, Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991
  • Section 9, Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991
  • Section 4, Explosive Act 1884
  • Section 5, Explosive Act 1884
  • Section 25(8), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailAnti-Terrorism Courtleave to appealjurisdiction of High Courtillicit arms recovery

' M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Atta Ullah alias Hassan petitioner has filed this petition seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan after the grant of leave to appeal by invoking the provision of subsection (2-b) of section 426, Cr.P.C.

2. That the petitioner was involved in case F.I.R. No,341, dated 11-9-2002 registered with Police Station Koh Murree District Rawalpindi under sections 13-B and 20 of the Arms Ordinance, sections 7/21/91 Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance and sections 4/5 of the Explosive Act. Petitioner was tried by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Rawalpindi Division who vide judgment, dated 31-3- 2004 convicted him under section 13-A(2)(c) of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr . P.C.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal in this Court (Criminal Appeal No,148 of 2004) which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 12-12-2006 and conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court was maintained.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the conviction and sentence recorded by the two Courts petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Criminal Petition No,18 of 2007) in which leave to appeal was granted on 24-9-2007.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that petitioner has been acquitted from the main charge of murder and since leave to appeal has been granted to him by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, he is entitled to be released on bail . In view of jurisdiction vested with this Court under section 426(2-B), Cr.P.C. He relies upon Gokulchand Dwarkadas Moraka v. Emperor AIR 1948 Bom.

377.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that by mere grant of leave to appeal by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan to the petitioner, he would not be entitled to be released on bail and petitioner should move the Honourable Supreme Court for his suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

7. Subsection (2-B) of section 426, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as under:--- "Where a High Court is satisfied that a convicted person has been granted special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court against any sentence which it has imposed or maintained, it may, if it so thinks fit order that pending the appeal the sentence or order appealed against be suspended, and, also if the said person is in confinement, that he be released on bail."

From bare reading of aforesaid provision of law it is clear that discretion has been left with the Court to suspend the sentence of a convict who has been granted leave to appeal by the Honourable Supreme Court "if it thinks fit" obviously according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that petitioner has been granted leave to appeal would not ipso facto give him right to seek the suspension of sentence. "A huge quantity of illicit arms in the shape of a kalashnikov, 3 magazine, 56 bullets and 2 hand-grenades were recovered from the petitioner and two Courts have concurrently found him guilty of the said offence and at this stage it cannot be said that such huge quantity was planted by the police to implicate the petitioner falsely". No special circumstance has been urged for suspension of sentence. Since the matter is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan anymore comments may prejudice the case of the petitioner before the apex Court.

8. This Court pending the appeal of a convict can suspend the sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C.

But in cases tried by Anti-Terrorism Court the said powers is not available in view of bar contained in section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. When a Court cannot exercise a power of releasing the accused on bail during the pendency of appeal before it, in our view the said jurisdiction cannot be exercised even after the decision of appeal by invoking provisions of -section 426(2-B), Cr.P.C.

9. For the foregoing reasons, there is hardly any good ground to release the petitioner on bail and resultantly, the petition is dismissed on merits as well as not maintainable.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.