ALI HAIDER vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had previously rejected the appellant's application for bail pending appeal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant had been convicted for offences under Section 307, Section 148, and Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether, given the state of the evidence presented at trial, the appellant was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Supreme Court observed that one prosecution witness testified to the appellant's absence from the crime scene, while the other two witnesses, though placing him at the scene, attributed no specific role to him. Finding merit in the contention that the appeal was likely to succeed, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and granted bail to the appellant, establishing the principle that where evidence against a convict is prima facie weak or contradictory, suspension of sentence pending appeal is appropriate.
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence appears weak?
- Is the absence of a specific role attributed to an accused by prosecution witnesses a valid ground for granting bail pending appeal?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-.The appellant was tried and convicted along-- with some others for offences under section 307/148/149, for which he was sentenced, inter alla, to 7 years' R.1. His application for bail under sec--tion 426, Cr. P. C. Was rejected by the High Court vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the present petition.
2. Notice was issued to the State. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State Counsel. The appellant's counsel submitted that out of the three witnesses in the case, one, namely, Abdur Rashid has stated that Ali Haider was not even present at the spot while the other two have stated that he was present but have not attributed any role to him. He submitted that on this state of evidence the appeal qua him is likely to succeed. There is force in this contention. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and accept the same, and grant bail to the appellant in the sum of Rupees Twenty Thousand with two sureties in the tike amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Pasrur.