SULTAN MEHMOOD vs KALEEM ULLAH and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court suspending the sentence of respondent No. 1 and granting him bail during the pendency of his appeal. The core legal question concerns the propriety of suspending a sentence and granting bail where the accused was implicated through a collective allegation alongside several co-accused who were ultimately acquitted by the trial court, where the medical evidence showed a single firearm injury attributed to multiple persons, where the accused was found innocent during investigation, and where the accused had already undergone a significant period of incarceration with no likelihood of an early hearing of the main appeal. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted with the discretionary order passed by the High Court given the peculiar circumstances of the case. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court may exercise discretion to suspend a sentence and grant bail pending appeal where the case of the convicted person appears to be at par with acquitted co-accused, coupled with delays in the hearing of the appeal and lack of misuse of prior bail concessions.
- Whether the High Court is justified in suspending a sentence and granting bail when the case of the convicted person is prima facie at par with acquitted co-accused?
- Does a collective allegation involving multiple accused attributed to a single firearm injury warrant the suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in granting bail when there is no prospect of an early hearing of the appeal?
ORDER
1. ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---With the assistance of the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State we have gone through the memorandum of this petition, the impugned order passed by the High Court and the relevant record of the case appended with this petition and have observed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night at Tahaj fad prayer's time and a collective allegation had been leveled by the prosecution against 6/7 persons including respondent No. 1 regarding firing at Qari Muhammad Ramzan deceased inside a mosque. The medical evidence had shown that the deceased had received only one firearm entry wound on his body which, as observed above, stood attributed to 6/7 persons. During the investigation respondent No.1 had been declared to be innocent and his name was placed in column No. 2 of the Challan. Nothing had been recovered from the custody of respondent No. 1 during the investigation. All the co-accused of respondent No. 1 had been acquitted by the trial court. In the impugned order the High Court had observed that the case against respondent No. '1 was prima facie at par with that against his acquitted co-accused. Respondent No. I had remained on bail during his trial and no allegation had been leveled regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by .him. Respondent No. 1 had spent about fourteen months in jail after recording of his conviction by the trial court and there was no prospect of an early hearing of his appeal before the High Court. In these circumstances the High Court had suspended the sentence of respondent No. 1 during the pendency of his appeal and, had admitted him on bail. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of the case we have not felt persuaded to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter by the High Court. This petition is, therefore,