MUHAMMAD KHAN SHAHID vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose out of an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending his appeal against conviction. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court refused bail on the short ground that evaluating the grounds urged would require deeper appreciation of evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a bail application pending appeal involving a short sentence should be decided on merits despite requiring tentative assessment of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to evaluate the application on merits, as the short three-year sentence created a distinct possibility that the convict would serve out his sentence before the appeal was heard. Observing an unexplained fourteen-month delay in lodging the complaint and potential animosity, the Supreme Court confirmed the interim bail.
- Whether a High Court can decline to decide a post-conviction bail application on merits merely because it requires appraisement of evidence?
- Whether the risk of an appellant serving out a short sentence before the hearing of the main appeal constitutes a valid ground for grant of bail?
- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging a criminal complaint constitute a ground for suspending sentence pending appeal?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---By this petition leave is sought to file appeal against order dated 10-6- 1996 of the Lahore High Court whereby the bail application during pendency of the appeal was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner was convicted for offence under section 420, P.P.C. Read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For six months. He was so convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge Anti-corruption. Rawalpindi, camping at Chakwal.
3. The petitioner is working as H.V.C. In the office of the Drputy Commissioner, Chakwal.
Complainant Muhammad Nawaz moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Chakwal for correction of mutation in respect of land and the petitioner is alleged to have kept on prolonging the matter and demanded the court-fees stamps of Rs,2,000. This amount was paid to the petitioner who offered to purchase the stamps himself and fix them on the file. Later on the petitioner also demanded Rs,7,000 for making payment to the authority who would sign the mutation. The complainant came to know that no court-fees stamps were required to be fixed on his application and, therefore, he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal, who directed it to the Magistrate for recording statement of the complainant. In the trial proceedings in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied the allegation and claimed that the complainant was a false blackmailer and used to make false applications against the members of the staff. He further stated that Fazal-ur-Rehman and Malik Amir Muhammad Khan, who were involved in litigation with complainant, visited him which also annoyed the complainant.
4. After conviction and sentence by the trial Court, the petitioner filed appeal in the High Court and during its pendency applied for bail and suspension of the sentence which was declined on the short ground that the disposal of the bail application on the grounds urged would involve deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be done at the stage of bail application. As against that we are of the considered view that the bail application should have been disposed of on merits even if that required appraisement of evidence for the simple reason that the sentence involved being three years is very low. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the convict would serve out the sentence before his appeal becomes ripe for hearing.
5. Bail plea is urged on the ground that the complaint was made against the petitioner after delay of fourteen months and further there was background of animosity between the petitioner and the complainant. It is also contended before us that the trial Court in its judgment has discussed the case of the defence first and then adverted to the evidence of the prosecution. The principle that it is the basic duty of the prosecution to prove case against accused beyond doubt even if defence plea is found to be defective has been disregarded. It is also submitted that the complainant who appeared as P.W.3 claimed that the petitioner had demanded Rs,2,000 as court-fees which were paid to him and two or three days thereafter the complainant came to know that the court-fees was not required, but for about fourteen months he remained silent and did not make any complaint. P.W.1, Syed Munir Hussain Shah, who claims to be an eye-witness, is friend of the complainant and has admitted to be accused in a murder case. The complainant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the complaint after discovery of the fact that the court-fees was not required.
6. In view of what is stated above and particularly being impressed by the fact that the sentence involved is only three years, we confirm the interim bail already granted by this Court vide order dated 28-8-1996 on the same terms and conditions.