MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus Mst. BAKHAT JAN
ORDER
1. AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Deferred for the time being.
2. Respondent No.1 present in Court and requests for time on the ground that her counsel is busy before another bench. Adjourned.
3. This appeal was filed on 26.12.2016 along with instant application under section 426, Cr.P.C. After service of notice, the S.H.O. P.S. Site Area was present alongwith complainant/respondent No.1, who seeks time to engage a counsel and matter was adjourned at her request. Thereafter, on 05.01.2017 Mr. Taj Fareen Khan advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1 and at his request matter was adjourned to 07.03.2017 when counsel for respondent No.1/complainant received copy of complainant and seeks time and at his request matter was adjourned to 14.03.2017. On 14.03.2017 none was present and no intimation was received. Even on 11.04.2017 counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant was called absent when learned counsel for the applicant submitted statement at bar along with photocopies of CNICs, which was taken on record. Statement at bar shows that the applicant No. 1 is aged about more than seventy (70) years and applicant No.2 is aged about more than sixty (60) years and counsel for the applicants submits that being senior citizen the applications of applicants under section 426, Cr.P.C. be heard as the same are pending since long. Therefore, matter was adjourned to 25.04.2017 with caution that if none appears on behalf of the complainant on the next date of hearing, then with the assistance of learned APG the application under section 426, Cr.P.C. will be heard and decided in accordance with law. On 25.04.2017 complainant Bakht Jan was present and filed application for engaging her another counsel and at her request matter was adjourned to 02.05.2017. On 02.05.2017 Mr. Mumtaz Hussain Bhatti advocate filed power on behalf of respondent No. 1 and matter was adjourned for today i.e. 09.05.2017. Today again respondent No.1 present and requests for time on the ground that her counsel is busy before another bench.
2. Conduct of the respondent No.1/ complainant shows that she is using delaying tactics to proceed with the matter. Applicants are aged about 60/70 years old and their case is of short sentence of three years S.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant as compensation. In case of default in payment of fine the accused persons shall be liable to undergo further term of six months simple imprisonment in addition to the substantive sentence.
3. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others reported in 1999 SCMR 2589 held as under:-
4. "Suspension of sentence ---Petitioner/convict was sentenced to three years' R. I. with fine by Trial Court, but Appellate Court below enhanced sentence of petitioner to five years' R.I. ---Petitioner filed appeal against his conviction and sentence before High Court along with petition for suspension of sentence, but High Court declined to suspend sentence of petitioner--Validity---Since sentence awarded to petitioner was short and was enhanced by Appellate Court below, case was fit in which High Court should have exercised its discretion in favour of petitioner / convict--- Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and admitted petitioner to bail".
5. In another case of Nazeer Ali alias Nazeer v. The State reported in 2011 YLR 403 it has been held that:--
6. "Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal . Punishment was awarded to the appellant to the extent of five years, which was a short sentence. Disposal of main appeal would take some time. Sentence being short, sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended, in circumstances and he was released on bail".
7. Keeping in view the short sentence awarded to the applicants, the sentences awarded to the applicants Muhammad Khan son of Mahmood Khan and Mst. Halima wife of Muhammad Khan awarded by the trial court vide judgment dated 20.12.2016 are hereby suspended and the Applicants are allowed to be released on bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
8. Instant application bearing C.M.A. No. 12519/2016 stands disposed of in the above terms.
9. JK/M-84/Sindh Bail granted.