AHMAD YAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner, Ahmad Yar, who was convicted under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended pending the hearing of his appeal, given the duration of his incarceration and the anticipated delay in the adjudication of his criminal appeal. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, noting that the petitioner had been in custody since June 17, 1996, and that the appellate court was currently occupied with criminal appeals from 1985, rendering an early hearing of the petitioner's appeal unlikely. Consequently, the Court ordered the suspension of the petitioner's sentence and admitted him to bail, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the amount of Rs. 300,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the anticipated delay in the hearing of a criminal appeal?
- Does the fact that a criminal appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future constitute valid grounds for the suspension of a sentence?
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Ahmad Yar petitioner alongwith his co-convict Allah Ditta, his son, have been convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, vide judgment dated 3-12- 1997. The petitioner has been sentenced to 5 years' R.I. And directed to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Wali Muhammad. He was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Ahmad Yar has moved this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. For suspension of his sentence on the ground that the sentence is short.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 17-6-1996 and since then he has been in the jail. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has also been extended to him. The appeal of the petitioner is not going to be taken up for hearing in the near future as the criminal appeals of the year 1985 are being heard these days. For these reasons this petition is allowed, and the execution of sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The bail bonds etc. After acceptance shall be transmitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for being placed on the file of this appeal.
Cited by 1 case
- Sardar MUHAMMAD NASEEM vs JUDGE, ACCOUNTABILITY COURT, LAHORE 2006 PLD Lahore 162