MUHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH vs The STATE and others
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail due to the statutory delay in the disposal of his appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two years and eight months following his conviction, and the appeal remained undecided through no fault of his own. Consequently, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail, finding that the petitioner had fulfilled the statutory requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding seven years is entitled to the suspension of sentence and release on bail if their appeal is not decided within a period of two years, provided they are not a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal.
- Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence if their appeal remains undecided for more than two years?
- Does the statutory right to bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to convicts sentenced to life imprisonment?
- Can a sentence be suspended on statutory grounds without addressing the merits of the criminal appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
C.M. No.1 of 2015 ' ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J,---Through the instant petition, Muhammad Ubaidullah, petitioner has sought suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No.205/2009, dated 01.11.2009, under Section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Daulat Gate, Multan and vide judgment dated 16.07.2012 he was convicted under Section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100,000/- under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default of which to further undergo six months SI.
Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to him.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgment was passed on 16.07.2012 and he is behind the bars since the pronouncement of the impugned judgment; that there is no likelihood of early hearing of the main appeal; that 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 previous non-convict; that neither he is hardened/desperate nor dangerous criminal.
3. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition.
4. Perusal of the tile reveals that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 16.07.2012 and the instant appeal was filed on 22.09.2012 and since then more than two years and eight months have been elapsed but the instant appeal has not yet been decided finally and the petitioner is behind the bars after pronouncement of the impugned judgment. Delay in disposal of his appeal cannot be said to be caused by him. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has earned statutory right introduced vide 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 complainant could not point out any material against the petitioner which shows that he 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 to be released on bail by suspending his sentence on statutory ground.
5. Resultantly, without touching the merits of the case, the instant petition is accepted on statutory ground, sentences of the petitioner is suspended and he is released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar(Judl) of this Court. He is further directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main appeal.