MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State

ORDER

SHAKIL AHMAD, J .---Through this petition under section 426 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Hanif seeks suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dunyapur vide judgment dated 26.09.2017. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced after trial in case FIR No. 217 of 2016, dated 06.10.2016 registered at Police Station Jalla Arain (Dunyapur), District Lodhran in respect of offences under sections 302, 377, P.P.C. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under

(i) Imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. and directed to pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(ii) Simple imprisonment for 10 years under section 377, P.P.C. with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed to farther undergo simple imprison-ment for six months.

The benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 426 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of statutory delay in the disposal of the main appeal. The main appeal is still pending adjudication, hence, this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since 08.10.2016 and was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 26.09.2017 and that the petitioner moved the jail appeal on 29.09.2017 before this Court, which is still pending and the delay in disposal of the appeal has not been occasioned by the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf, hence the sentences of the petitioner may be suspended.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor while opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner has been convicted by the trial court on the basis of a well-reasoned judgment as such petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed by way of suspension of sentence.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 26.09.2017 and the instant appeal was lodged on 29.09.2017 before this court, which is still pending adjudication. In routine petitioner would be entitled to bail on the ground that more than two years have gone by and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the near future. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is a previous convict or a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The criminal appeal was filed on 29.09.2017 and more than three years have gone but the appeal has not been disposed of. The delay in hearing of the appeal has not been caused by the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the sentences of the petitioner is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing in the main Criminal Appeal No. 483-J of 2017.

AA/M-225/L Petition allowed.