Ghulam Abbas vs The State
This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition seeking the suspension of sentences awarded to the petitioner, who was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment and fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with fines. The core legal question concerns whether the execution of sentences should be suspended and the convict released on bail pending appeal when a major portion of the sentence has already been served and the appeal is unlikely to be fixed for hearing in the near future. The court held that since the petitioner had undergone more than half of the sentences—which were ordered to run concurrently—and there was no likelihood of the appeal being fixed shortly, the sentences should be suspended. The key principle laid down is that post-conviction suspension of sentence and grant of bail may be favored where the accused has served a substantial portion of the imprisonment and the hearing of the main appeal is delayed without fault of the appellant.
- Whether the sentence of a convict can be suspended when he has undergone a substantial portion of his imprisonment?
- Does the unlikelihood of an appeal being fixed for hearing in the near constitute a ground for suspension of sentence?
- Can sentences awarded in multiple cases be considered concurrently for the purpose of computing the period already undergone for bail consideration?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER Through this Crl. Misc, and Crl. Misc. No. 1/2010 of Crl. Appeal No. 184-2006, the petitioner seeks suspension of sentences awarded to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh vide his judgment dated 5.4.2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been convicted u/S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in case F.I.R. Nos. 206/2005 and 207/2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment and 14 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and. Rs. 50,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one year and six months' S.I. Respectively. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently, It is contended that the petitioner has served out major portion of his sentence. There is no likelihood of fixation of his appeal in near future so sentence awarded to petitioner may be suspended.
3. Conversely learned APG on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed both the petitions and submitted that main appeal be fixed for hearing.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As per report submitted by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan the petitioner has already undergone more than half of the sentences, as both the sentences would run concurrently.
There is also no likelihood of fixation of his appeal in near future. So the sentences awarded to him are hereby suspended. He shall be released on bail provided he submits bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount in each of the petition to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.