IMTIAZ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant, Imtiaz, seeking suspension of sentence and post-conviction bail pending the disposal of his appeal against a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was merely a helper on the truck and not the owner or driver, and whose conviction required a reappraisal of evidence regarding his culpability, was entitled to bail pending appeal. The Court observed that the trial court had itself noted mitigating factors, such as the applicant's status as a helper and his poverty, which cast doubt on the conviction. Finding that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future and that the applicant had already undergone significant pre-trial and post-conviction detention, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail. The principle established is that where the trial court's own findings raise significant questions regarding the sustainability of a conviction, bail pending appeal is appropriate.
- Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted pending appeal when the trial court's own findings raise doubts about the sustainability of the conviction?
- Is the status of an accused as a mere helper rather than the owner or driver of a vehicle a relevant factor for considering bail in narcotics cases?
- Does the lack of likelihood of an early hearing of an appeal constitute a ground for suspending a sentence and granting bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1 of 2010.
' Applicant Imtiaz by way of the instant application has prayed for suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending disposal of his appeal.
2. He, vide the judgment rendered on 24-9-2009, by Malik Mubeen Ahmad, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti-Narcotics, Sheikhupura, in case F.I.R. No,467 registered with Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura on 14-5-2007, has been convicted under section 9(c) of the Act supra and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs,50,000 and in default thereof to further suffer six months' SI. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to him:
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we would like to reproduce herein below para 16 of the impugned judgment:-- Extreme penalty of death is not awarded to accused because:--
(i) He is neither owner nor driver of the truck but just a helper of the truck.
(ii) Co-accused have not been arrested by the police.
(iii) He is very poor person and not in a position to purchase such a huge quantity of charas himself.
4. These observations of the learned trial Court have rendered his case requiring reappraisal of the evidence on record to see that if he in such circumstances, could be convicted under the said offence or that his conviction and sentence can be maintained. The learned Deputy Prosecutor- General, when confronted with this position, he has not been able to given any satisfactory answer to the same.
5. According to his learned counsel, he has been arrested in this case on 14-5-2007 and since then is continuously suffering detention till date. There is no likelihood of early hearing of his appeal in the near future.
6. We, therefore, in such circumstances, accept this petition and suspend his sentence and admit him to bail pending disposal of his appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 300,000 (Rupees three hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.