JAMSHED ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences of the petitioners, who were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences and release on bail solely due to the statutory delay of two years in the disposal of their appeal, as contemplated under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exercised its discretion reasonably by refusing bail given the peculiar circumstances of the case, specifically that the petitioners were caught red-handed with weapons of offence at the crime scene. The Court affirmed that the statutory provision for bail due to delay is not absolute and allows the Court to direct otherwise. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the High Court's discretion was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and noting that the basis for the interim bail had disappeared as the appeal was nearing final hearing.
- Does the statutory delay of two years in the disposal of an appeal under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create an absolute right to bail?
- Can a court deny bail to a convict despite the statutory delay in appeal disposal if the circumstances of the case warrant such refusal?
- Is the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence based on the specific facts of the crime subject to interference by the Supreme Court if the discretion was exercised reasonably?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioners were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced inter alia to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 21-7-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. An appeal was preferred before the Lahore High Court against the conviction and sentence but the same has not been disposed of, although more than two years have passed since the appeal was preferred and it is still pending.
2. Accordingly a petition was moved under section 426(1-A) (t) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 11-10-1993. The reason for refusing the prayer for suspending the sentence was stated thus:-- "However, the delay of two years in the disposal of the appeal is a point worth consideration because the provisions of section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. Envisages the concession of bail to the petitioners on this ground alone unless the Court otherwise directs.
' I have considered this aspect of the matter carefully and dispassionately. The two petitioners, who were allegedly armed with carbine had opened fire on the deceased, who was sitting in the chamber of an Advocate in the Court premises and thus had caused his death. Both the petitioners were then caught red-handed at the spot along with their weapons of offence and were produced before the Court by P.W.6 and P.W.7, namely, S.I.Gul Fraz and F.C. Abdul Khaliq, the Nab Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail even on the point of delay of two years in the disposal of their appeal. I, therefore, refuse to exercise my discretion to allow the concession of bail to the petitioners."
' Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. On 15-12-1993 a learned Judge of this Court was pleased to allow interim bail in chambers, to the petitioners principally on the ground that in spite of the appeal having been fixed repeatedly it has not been heard within the statutory period of two years.
4. Today, however, when the petition for leave came up for hearing before the Court, learned counsel for both sides have stated that the appeal in the Lahore High Court is being fixed for hearing in the next few days. The basis on which the order of interim bail was made accordingly disappears. The High Court in full consciousness of the provision of section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. Has not found the petitioners entitled to the concession of bail in the peculiar circumstances of this case and directed "otherwise".
5. As the Lahore High Court has not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably no ground for interference with its well-reasoned order exists. The upshot is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.