KARIM BAKHSH vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Karim Bakhsh against the High Court's order dismissing his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending his appeal against conviction under sections 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal on the rule of consistency, given that co-accused attributed with injuries had already been released on bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, notwithstanding his additional conviction under section 307 for injuring a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court held that the case was a fit one for the grant of bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle of consistency in the treatment of convicted co-accused regarding the suspension of sentences pending appeal.
- Whether a convicted person is entitled to bail pending appeal when co-accused assigned similar or graver roles have been released on bail?
- Can the suspension of sentence be granted under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to a convict who has an additional conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Karim Bakhsh who is accused alongwith some others in a case under section 302/307/149, P.P.C. Was convicted on both the charges. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence and also applied for suspension of his sentence. The last mentioned application was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order, dated 4-11-1984.
Hence the present petition.
2. We issued notice to the-State and have heard learned counsel for both sides.
We notice that all the co-accused who had been attributed injuries to the deceased and were convicted of the same offences as the both have been released on bail under section 426, Cr.P.C.
But the petitioner's application for bail was rejected, on the ground that although he was not attributed any injury to the deceased yet he had been additionally convicted under section 307, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Alam Din P. W.
3. Considering all the facts of this case and without making any observation which may prejudice the case of either side he think this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. We, therefore, convert the petition into appeal, allow the same and grant bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.20,000 with to sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad.