Muhammad Abbas vs The State
The petitioner Muhammad Abbas filed an application under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of his sentence and grant of bail pending the disposal of his criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302(b)/34, 324/34, 337-A(i)/34, 337-F(ii)/34, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail on the ground of statutory delay in the disposal of his appeal under Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since a considerable period of over seven years had elapsed without a final decision on the appeal, and the petitioner was not a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, he had earned a statutory right to the suspension of his sentence. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a near-future hearing of the main appeal warrants the suspension of sentence on statutory grounds under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether a convict is entitled to suspension of sentence on the ground of statutory delay under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the appeal is not decided within a reasonable time?
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal without touching upon the merits of the case?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of an early hearing of the main appeal constitute a valid ground for bail?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - Through the instant application filed u/S. 426, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muhammad Abbas has sought suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending disposal of the above-mentioned appeal.
2. The petitioner vide judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal was convicted and sentenced as follows:--
(I) Under Sections 302(b)/34, PPC. Imprisonment for 'Life' as Tazir with payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of non-payment, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
(II) Under Sections 324/34, PPC. - Four years' rigorous imprisonment on two counts.
(III) Under Sections 337-A(i)/34, PPC. -- One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- as Daman in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(IV) Under Sections 337-F(ii)34, PPC. ~ One year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- as Daman in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(V) Under Section 460, PPC. - Five year's rigorous imprisonment.
Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was extended to the petitioner.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the F.I.R., the petitioner has been attributed an injury on the person of Khudeja Bibi but according to^ M.L.R., the injury was inflicted by blunt weapon. Further submits that co-accused of the petitioner who have been attributed injuries to the deceased, have already been allowed bail while suspending their sentence on 16.1.2011. The petitioner was arrested on 28.11.2002 and since then, he is behind the bars.
There is no likelihood of early hearing of the main appeal. The petitioner also deserves suspension of his sentence on the ground of statutory delay in terms of amendment under Section 426(1- A)
(c), Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is a previous non-convict; that neither he is hardened/desperate nor dangerous criminal; and that there is a strong probability that the appeal filed by the petitioner would succeed in the long run and to keep him continuously imprisoned may not serve any purpose.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General while opposing this petition contends that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court after regular trial; the learned Trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding lesser sentence to the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for the relief v prayed for.
5. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant despite being informed about the fixation of this petition.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of the file reveals that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.11.2004 whereas the instant appeal was filed on 11.1.2005, and since then about seven years and four months have been elapsed but the instant appeal has not yet been decided finally, In this view of the matter, the petitioner has earned statutory right introduced vide recent amendment in Section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. The appeal of the present petitioner is not likely to be decided finally in near future. Even otherwise, learned DPG could not point out any material against the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner is hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal, In these circumstances, further captivity of the petitioner in jail will not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
8. So, without touching the merits of the case especially when there is no likelihood of hearing of the main appeal, the instant petition is accepted on statutory ground, sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,0, 000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing till the disposal of main appeal.