UZMA SHAHZADI vs STATE and another
The petitioner, Uzma Shahzadi, was convicted under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. She filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking the suspension of her sentence and release on bail pending the final disposal of her main appeal. The core legal question was whether a convict serving a short sentence is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail when the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. The Lahore High Court held that since the sentence awarded was short and there was little likelihood of the appeal being heard during the remaining period of incarceration, refusing to suspend the sentence would render the appeal infructuous. The Court laid down the principle that suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal should generally be allowed in cases involving short sentences where the hearing of the main appeal is delayed and the purpose of the appeal would otherwise be defeated.
- Whether the sentence of a convict can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when the sentence is of a short duration?
- Does the unlikelihood of an appeal being heard in the near future constitute a valid ground for suspending a sentence?
- Can bail be granted pending appeal if refusing it would render the main appeal infructuous?
- Section 156(1)(8), Customs Act 1969
- Section 164, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
Crl. Misc No, 1/2011 The petitioner/Uzma Shahzadi was tried in case FIR No, 120/2010, dated 25.3.2010, registered in Police Station Batapur, District Lahore, under Sections 156(1)(8) & 164 of the Customs Act, 1969, by the learned Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, Lahore, who, vide judgment dated 26.10.2011, convicted her under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, and sentenced to three years with fine of Rs,50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for six months.
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought suspension of her sentence and release on bail till the final disposal of the main appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a woman and sentence of three years awarded to her is short. He further submitted that there is no likelihood of hearing of the accompanying appeal in near future. He contended that if the sentence of the petitioner is not suspended, the accompanying appeal is likely to become infructuous.
3. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel has opposed the instant petition on the ground that the present petitioner is involved in four other cases and in case, her sentence is suspended, she will repeat the offence.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, the sentence of three years awarded to the I petitioner is short and there is least chance of the accompanying appeal being heard during the remaining period of her sentence because hearing of the same is not in sight, as such the whole purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated, in case, the sentence of the petitioner is not suspended.
6. In view of above, the instant petition, filed on behalf of the petitioner/Mst. Uzma Shahzadi, is allowed; her sentence is suspended and she is ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-, with one surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.