ABDUL MUNAAF vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal by a petitioner convicted under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had absconded during the trial proceedings, was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail, given that his co-convicts, who faced graver allegations, had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner's abscondance was a distinguishing factor, it did not constitute conclusive proof of guilt, as individuals react differently to fear of arrest or reprisal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner's role—limited to raising a Lalkara—was less severe than that of his co-convicts who had already been granted relief. The key principle laid down is that abscondance, while a relevant factor, is not an absolute bar to the suspension of sentence and bail, and must be weighed against the overall circumstances and the principle of consistency in judicial relief.
- Does the fact of an accused's abscondance during trial serve as an absolute bar to the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal?
- Can a convict be granted bail pending appeal if his co-convicts with graver roles have already been granted similar relief?
- Is abscondance considered conclusive proof of guilt in the context of a bail application?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence and his consequential release on bail, as he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment dated 1-8-2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted/sentenced for the only role of having raised Lalkara at, the time of occurrence; two co-convicts of the petitioner, Kashif-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Altaf, who were sentenced to identical terms of imprisonment, have been admitted to bail by way of suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 23-2- 2010; the role of the petitioner is of lesser gravity to that of the released co-convicts, therefore, the petitioner may also be granted the same relief.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant disputes the prayer of the petitioner with the contention that the convict-petitioner having been admitted to bail on 21-4-2005, pending trial, absconded and he was arrested by the police on 25-11-2010; the petitioner's abscondance has not been explained by the other side, so he may not be admitted to bail as he would abscond again, if admitted to bail; the petitioner is directly linked with the motive part of the prosecution-case and his proven participation in the occurrence is distinguishable on facts from the case of his co-convicts, who had been granted bail earlier in consequence of suspension of their sentence.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is observed that the petitioner despite being armed did not use the weapon (Sofa), he held at the time of alleged occurrence. The Lalkara attributed to the petitioner, coupled with the allegation regarding his close linkage with the motive part of the prosecution case, cannot be considered as heavy circumstance as his co-convicts Kashif-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Altaf were burdened with. The factum of abscondance of the petitioner, however, draws a line of distinction between him and the above- named co-convicts, but we have to remember, that the abscondahce is not a conclusive proof of guilt of an accused. Sometimes, an innocent person may run away, fearing the reprisals of his adversaries or out of fear of being arrested by the police. To opt to be an absconder or to face the situation in a manlike manner, however, depends upon the chemistry of an individual, as different persons have been differently constituted by Almighty Allah. The co-convicts of the petitioner, namely, Kashif-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Altaf, had been granted bail by way of suspension of sentence vide order dated 23-2-2010 by this Court despite their role, according to the prosecution case was graver than that of the petitioner. A son and co-convict of the petitioner, namely, Amraiz has been awarded the death sentence. The true import of the evidence of abscondance of the petitioner shall be assessed at the time of final adjudication of the appeal, filed by the petitioner, who stands imprisoned since 25-10-2011.
5. For the forgoing reasons, we are inclined to accept this application, which is so done accordingly.
The sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.