GANHWAR and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of the sentence of two appellants, Ganhwar and Rehan, pending the disposal of their appeal. Counsel for the appellants did not press the application regarding the co-appellant, Rehan. Regarding the appellant Ganhwar, it was contended that he was armed only with a lathi and did not cause any injury to the victim. Furthermore, it was argued that given the three-year sentence imposed and the anticipated delay in the disposal of the appeal, the appellant was entitled to the concession of bail. The State offered no objection to this request. Relying on the precedent established in Muhammad Khan v. The State (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 1), where a three-year sentence was suspended, the Court held that the sentence of the appellant Ganhwar should be suspended. The Court granted bail to Ganhwar, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond, and directed the office to prepare the paper book within one month.
- Can the sentence of a convict be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the sentence is for a period of three years?
- Is a convict entitled to the suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal if the disposal of the appeal is likely to take a significant amount of time?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' This is an application under section 426, Cr.P.C. With a prayer to suspend the sentence of the appellants namely and respectively Ghanwhar and Rehan. Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi, Advocate for the State is on notice. Mr. Muhammad Daud Baloch at the very outset has submitted that he is not pressing this application for co-appellant Rehm and he has contended that as far as appellant Ghanwhar is concerned, he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer three years' R.I. And his case is to be taken into consideration while dealing with this application under section 426, Cr.P.C.
2. According to him both the appellants are real brothers and the present appellant Ghanwhar has not caused any injury to injured Wadho and he was only armed with Lathi. He has further contended that since the sentence is three years and he is entitled to the concession of bail at this stage and disposal of appeal would take pretty long time. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on a case Muhammad Khan v. The State reported in PLD 1997 Supreme Court 1, wherein the convict was awarded three years sentence and his sentence was suspended being three years and was granted bail.
3. 'On the other hand, Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi for the State has given no objection if the sentence of appellant Ghanwhar is suspended and is granted bail.
4. ' In view of authority given by Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1997 Supreme Court I the sentence of appellant Ghanwhar is suspended and he is granted hail in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. This application under section 426, Cr.P.C. Is not being pressed by Mr. Muhammad Daud Baloch with regard to co- appellant Rehan bearing M.A. No, 544 of 2001 stands disposed of. The office is directed to prepare the paper book within one month from today and thereafter the matter be fixed for regular hearing.