JAVED AKHTAR alias ASHRAF vs THE STATE
This is a criminal appeal directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted for Qatl-e-Amd and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Pending the hearing of the main appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail on the ground that he had been in continuous confinement for over two years and that the appeal was not likely to be heard in the near future. The Lahore High Court considered the protracted incarceration of the appellant and the unlikelihood of an early hearing of the appeal. Relying on established precedents regarding post-conviction bail in cases of delayed hearings, the court held that where an accused has undergone a considerable period of imprisonment and the appeal is not likely to be decided soon, the operation of the sentence may be suspended. Consequently, the court admitted the appellant to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether the sentence of a convict can be suspended and bail granted when the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future?
- Does prolonged incarceration pending a criminal appeal serve as a ground for the release of the appellant on bail?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is an appeal in Sessions Case No,25 of 1995, against the judgment, dated 17-7-1997, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sahiwal, whereby the appellant Javed Akhtar alias Ashraf son of Muhammad Sharif, Caste Ansari was held guilty for Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Hanif deceased and was punished with imprisonment for life as Ta'zir. The accused was also to get the benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court was of the view that taking a lenient view in his case was because of the absence of any previous enmity and motive and also because of the solitary injury caused by the accused to the deceased.
2. It is said that the petitioner was continuously in confinement for the last more than two years since 17-7-1997 and there is no likelihood that the appeal will be heard in the near future. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for suspension of the sentence and for his release on bail.
3. The appeal is admitted to regular hearing and since the petitioner is in the lock-up since over two years and there is no likelihood that this appeal will be heard in the very near future and while placing reliance on the case; Khuda Bux v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 2359 and Liaquat Ali v. State PLD 1995 SC 429 the operation of the impugned judgment is suspended and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two respectable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. He is directed to appear in person whenever called for purposes of hearing of this appeal.