BAHADAR And 5 Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences of six petitioners convicted under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, sentenced to life imprisonment, had filed an appeal in the High Court which remained pending for over three years. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail under the statutory provisions governing delayed appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court held that under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment is ordinarily entitled to bail if their appeal remains undecided for more than two years post-conviction. The Court emphasized that if an appellate court denies this statutory benefit, it is mandatory to record specific reasons for such denial. Finding that the High Court failed to record reasons for refusing bail, the Supreme Court granted the petition, converted it into an appeal, and directed the petitioners' release on bail.
- Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to bail if their appeal is not decided within two years of conviction?
- Must an appellate court record reasons when denying bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to petitioners if the High Court fails to provide reasons for denying suspension of sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The six petitioners, namely, Bahadar, Ghulam Qadir, Zahoor, Hashim, Qasim and Abdul Ghafoor, were convicted along with three others by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, on charges under sections 302 and 307, read with section 149, and section 148, Pakistan Penal Code. In respect of the offence under section 302 they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. And in respect of offences under section 307 and section 148 the learned Court directed them to undergo different terms of imprisonment. In addition they were also asked to pay fines. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. They filed an appeal against their convictions and sentences before the High Court. The appeal has not yet been disposed of even though a period of more than three years has advanced since their conviction. They applied for suspension of their sentences but their prayer in this regard was rejected by the High Court. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Under section 426(1-A), Criminal Procedure Code, a person under a sentence of imprisonment for life becomes ordinarily entitled to be released on bail if his appeal is not decided within a period of to years of his conviction. If the appellate Court denies him this benefit it must record its reason for the denial. The High Court has not recorded its reasons for not extending the benefit of this provisions to the petitioners; it only directed that their appeal should be listed for hearing on 15-5- 1995. It may be mentioned that their appeal was not heard on that day. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal and direct that they shall be released on bail on their executing bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with to sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari.
Cited by 3 cases
- IBRAHIM alias ABU Versus State 2017 YLRN 91
- Syed NAVEED ALI vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2914
- Syed Naveed Ali vs The State