TOTO vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending criminal appeal, against the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2016 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 23 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the execution of a lesser sentence should be suspended and the convict released on bail when the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future and the appellant has already served a substantial portion of the sentence. The court held that since the appellant had already undergone about one year of confinement out of the short sentence, the appeal had been admitted, preparation of the paper book and final disposal would take time, and the appellant had a good arguable case on merits, the sentence ought to be suspended. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving lesser sentences where the appeal cannot be heard promptly and the accused has already served a meaningful period of imprisonment, the sentence may be suspended pending appeal.
- Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the disposal of the appeal is likely to take time?
- Whether the unserved portion of a lesser sentence constitutes a valid ground for suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence after serving a substantial portion of a short-term imprisonment?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 23, Sindh Arms Act 2013
ORDER
1. ' The listed application u/S. 426, Cr.P.C., is filed in this criminal appeal against impugned judgment dated 24.02.2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted u/S. 23 of Sindh. Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo R.I for two (4) years with fine of Rs, 10,000/=. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to appellant.
2. ' Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is in custody since 23.6.2015, and as per Impugned Judgment he has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two (4) years, which if be considered as two years or, four years is lesser sentence and the appellant has undergone confinement for about one year and has relied on the cases reported in 2007 P.Cr.LJ. 1035 (DB Karachi) and 1999 SCM R 2589. Further the appellant has submitted that appellant has got good case on merits; the decision of the Appeal would take time and as such this application be allowed.
3. ' Learned DDPP, has opposed the suspension of sentence.
4. As per impugned judgment, it has been mentioned that the appellant has to undergo R.I for two (4) years, so if it is 2 or 4 years, then in either case the sentence is lesser and appellant is in jail since about one year for which the reference is mentioned on the cases reported in 1999 S.C.M.R. 2589 and 2007 P.Cr.LJ 1035. Further the Appeal of the appellant has already been admitted; the paper book is under preparation; the disposal of this appeal on merits may take time and even otherwise apparently the appellant has got case on merits.
5. ' In the above circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby suspended and he be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 200,000/= (two lacs) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
6. ' In view of above, the listed application stands disposed of.