Naveed Ahmad vs The State
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the juvenile petitioner Naveed Ahmad seeking suspension of his sentence and release on post-arrest bail pending disposal of his criminal appeal against his conviction under Sections 449 and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that his appeal had remained undecided for over two years and he was not a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had earned a statutory right to the suspension of his sentence as his appeal had not been decided within the statutory period and he did not fall within the exceptions disentitling him to such relief. The court laid down the principle that a convict sentenced to life imprisonment or a term exceeding seven years is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail as a statutory right if their appeal is not decided within two years, provided they are not hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals and the delay in the disposal of the appeal is not attributable to them.
- Whether a convict is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail on the ground of statutory delay if their appeal is not decided within two years?
- Does the lack of early hearing of an appeal entitle a previous non-convict to release on bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What constitutes sufficient ground for the suspension of sentence of a juvenile offender undergoing life imprisonment pending appeal?
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J. - At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws this petition for the time being.
2. Disposed of accordingly.
Crl, Misc. No. 1/2011
3. Petitioner Naveed Ahmad through the instant petition has sought for suspension of his sentence and admitting him to bail pending disposal of the above- mentioned appeal.
4. He being the juvenile vide the judgment rendered on 19.3.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, was convicted and sentenced as under:--
(i) Under Section 449, PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to further suffer S.I. For one month.
(ii) Under Section 302(b), PPC to suffer life imprisonment with payment of fine Rs. 1,0, 000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further suffer S.I. For six months.
Both the sentences are ordered to tun consecutively with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgment was passed on 19.3.2010 and since then he is behind the bars; that three is no likelihood of early hearing of the main appeal; that the petitioner also deserves suspension of his sentences 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 nor delay in hearing the appeal is on his part.
6. On the other hand, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition.
7. A report regarding the served and un-served period of sentence of the petitioner was called from the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan. According to the said report, the petitioner has served out about more than eleven years; six months and twenty-five days including the remissions earned by him and the Un-expired portion of the petitioner's sentence is twenty-three years' five months and five days. Such report was compiled on 27.10.2011 i.e. About nine months and seventeen days ago.
8. Further perusal of the file reveals that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 19.3.2010 whereas the instant appeal was forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan on 11.8.2010, which was received in this Court on 20.8.2010, which reportedly was barred by ninety-four days and vide order dated 17.3.2011 the petition for condonation of delay was allowed, and since then 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., which underlines that a convict shall be entitled to grant of bail through suspension of sentence, if he has been sentenced for imprisonment for life or exceeding seven years' imprisonment and his appeal is not decided within a period of two years. The appeal of the present petitioner is not likely to be decided finally in near future. Even otherwise, learned DPG as well as the learned counsel for the (sic) 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 and he is entitled for suspension of his sentence on statutory ground.
9. Resultantly, without touching the merits of the case, the instant petition is accepted on statutory ground, sentences of the petitioner are suspended and he is released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) of this Court.