MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence of imprisonment for life under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pending the disposal of his criminal appeal against his conviction under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail due to the protracted delay in the disposal of his appeal, where the delay was not attributable to him and he had already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had been behind bars since his arrest, had been acquitted in all past cases, was a non-convict previously, and the appeal had not reached its final conclusion without any fault on his part, he qualified for the statutory concession under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as amended by Act No. VIII of 2011. The petition was accepted and the sentence was suspended, releasing the petitioner on bail.
- Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to delayed disposal of an appeal not caused by him?
- Does the mere filing of a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence act as a bar against accepting an application for suspension of sentence?
- Can past involvement in criminal cases that ended in acquittal render a convict a hardened criminal for the purpose of denying post-conviction bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him vide judgment dated 31-5-2007 passed by the learned ASJ/JOP, Kasur, in case F.I.R.
No, 197 of 2004 dated 26-5-2004 Police Station Khudian, District Kasur, under sections 302/ 148/ 149, P. P. C .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was arrested in the abovementioned case on 31-12-2004 and is behind the bars since then. It is urged that the delay in disposal of the appeal has not been caused by the petitioner or anyone acting on his behalf. It is urged that the petitioner was involved in some cases in the past but has been acquitted so is entitled to his release on bail through suspension of sentence.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence has been filed but conceded that the same has still not been admitted to hearing and notice has not been issued. Mere filing of the criminal revision is no bar on acceptance of the application under section 426, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned D.P.-G. Has contended that after findings of the learned trial Court the initial presumption of innocence has come to an end and the petitioner is not entitled to the suspension of sentence as he has caused Qatl-e-Amd of an innocent person.
5. The petitioner was arrested on 31-12-2004 and is behind the bars since then. It is admitted that in all other. Cases he has already been acquitted. He is a non-convict previously. It is true that according to judgment of the learned trial Court, he is responsible for causing Qatl-e-Amd of Shaukat Ali deceased but these adverse findings or involvement in criminal cases in the past, which have ended in acquittal do not show that he is a desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal. He is behind the bars w,e,f, 31-12-2004. The instant appeal was filed on 12-6-2007 and has yet not reached its logical end without any fault on his part. No ground is available to withhold the concession, which is available to him under Section 426, (1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. As amended through Act No,VIII of 2011.
6. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and the sentence of the petitioner is suspended.
He be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 (Rupees two lac and fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. He is directed to remain in attendance on every date of hearing till final disposal of the appeal.