LIAQUAT and anothers vs The STATE
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences and the grant of post-conviction bail pending the final adjudication of the criminal appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were convicted and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, were entitled to bail during the pendency of their appeal, given that the paper book had not yet been prepared and the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the immediate future. The Court held that the application should be allowed, noting that the appellants had remained on bail during the trial without misusing the concession. Furthermore, the Court observed that the sentences awarded were relatively short and the delay in the preparation of the paper book necessitated the suspension of the sentences. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal appeal is admitted to regular hearing, the sentences are short, and the preparation of the paper book is delayed, the court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending appeal.
- Can a court suspend a sentence and grant bail pending appeal when the paper book has not yet been prepared?
- Does the fact that an appellant remained on bail during the trial without misuse constitute a valid ground for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Is the imposition of a short sentence a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---By this order, I intend to dispose of C.M.A. No.1642 of 2013, i.e. An application under section 426, Cr.P.C. Filed by the Advocate for appellants with a prayer to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellants by learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 13- 7-2013, and enlarge them on bail, during pendency of appeal.
2. Notice of this application was given to learned Addl. A.G and so also to complainant. Mr. Ghulam Ali Samtio learned Advocate for the appellants, Miss. Shamim Khokhar learned Advocate for the State and Mr. Saleem Raza Jakhar, learned Advocate for complainant are present and they have been heard on this application.
3. Learned Advocate for appellants in support of his application has mainly argued that since main criminal appeal against conviction of the appellants has already been admitted to regular hearing by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, vide order dated 24-7-2013. He further subniitted that sentences awarded to appellant No.1 Liaquat to undergo' R. I . For three years for the offence under section 337-F(iii) P.P.C. While appellant Sanaullah, was awarded sentences to suffer R.I. For five years under sections 337-D and 337-F(v) P.P.C. Are short sentences and during trial they were on bail, but did not misuse the bail. According to him, paper book has not yet been prepared and it will take time, therefore, he has prayed for suspension of sentences till hearing of the appeal. In support of his arguments he has relied upon unreported Order dated 9-10-2012, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. S-81 of 2012.
4. Learned State Counsel did not oppose this application.
5. However, learned Advocate for complainant has opposed the application in hand by arguing that if the appellants are allowed bail, they will jump the bail. He has not relied upon any case-law in support of his arguments.
6. Admittedly, the main criminal appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence has already been admitted by my learned brother Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar vide his detailed order dated 24-7-2013, while relying the case-law reported in 2009 PCr.LJ 747. Perusal of record shows that the appellants were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber, in Sessions Case No.208 of 2011, and awarded sentence to appellant Liaquat to undergo' R.I. For three years for offence under section 337-F(iii) P.P.C, while appellant Sanaullah was awarded sentence to suffer R.I for five years for each count for offences under section 337-D and 337-F(v)
P.P.C. Record shows that appellants were on bail during trial before trial Court. Paper book has not yet been prepared; certainly it will take time; sentences awarded to the appellants are short as stated above. I, therefore, under the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and in view of order passed in Criminal Appeal No. S-81 of 2012; and also in view of numerous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan feel no hesitation to allow this application, which is allowed.
Consequently, the sentences awarded to the appellants are hereby suspended till disposal of appeal and appellants are granted bail on furnishing their sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional IA Registrar of this Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Hashim Pathan vs The State 2024 PCRLJ 1871
- BHUTTO Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 66