Pakistan Case Law
1982 SCMR 1177

BASHIR AHMED AND Others vs The STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 SCMR 1177
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 226 of 1982 Criminal
Date1982-06-19
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi
Authored byAslam Riaz Hussain
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed their application for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences exceeding four years of rigorous imprisonment. While their appeal against conviction was admitted for hearing by the High Court, their request for bail pending appeal was denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the impugned order and found no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court judge in refusing to suspend the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the incarceration of the petitioners during the pendency of their appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a convicted person entitled to suspension of sentence as a matter of right pending an appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
suspension of sentencebail pending appealleave to appealcriminal convictiondiscretionary power

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court dated 19-5-1982, rejecting their bail application under section 426, Cr. P. C.

2. They were tried and convicted under sections 366/376, P. P. C. And sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The maximum sentence awarded being more than 4 years' R. I. They filed an appeal before the High Court, which was admitted to hearing. They also applied for suspension of their sentence. That application was, however, dismissed -vide the impugned order, Hence the present petition.

3 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order, but we are not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in Chamber.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.