ZAHID NASEER and another Versus THE STATE
The petitioners, convicted under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine by the trial court, sought suspension of their sentence and release on bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of their appeal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to suspension of sentence and bail due to the delay in the disposal of their appeal. The Lahore High Court held that since the period of imprisonment after conviction had exceeded one year and heavy pendency of criminal appeals prevented early disposal, the petitioners were entitled to relief under subsection (1-A) of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that an un-decided criminal appeal exceeding one year of post-conviction incarceration, coupled with institutional delays in hearing appeals, warrants the suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail.
- Whether a convict is entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the appeal is not decided within one year?
- Does heavy pendency of criminal appeals in the High Court constitute a ground for suspending the sentence of a convicted person?
- What are the statutory requirements for granting bail during the pendency of an appeal under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Zahid Naseer and Zaheer Ahmad alongwith two others were tried in the Court of Judicial Magistrate with powers of Section 30, Cr.P.C., Daska, District Sialkot, and vide judgment, dated 4-4- 1998 were sentenced to seven years imprisonment for offence under section 324, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,10,000 each in default of payment of which the convicts were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The convicts submitted appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded to them. The petitioners now seek suspension of sentence through under consideration application and enlargement on bail during the pendency of appeal submitted by them.
2. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that conviction of the petitioners was recorded on 4-4-1998 and appeal submitted by them has not been decided so far and the petitioners were entitled under subsection (1-A) of section 426, Cr.P.C. For suspension of sentence learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.
3. The period of imprisonment of petitioners after conviction has exceeded one year, but the appeal filed by them has not been taken up for hearing nor has been disposed of so far. Heavy pendency of criminal appeals in this Court would stand in the way of early disposal of the appeal filed by the convicts, and as such the petitioners are entitled to suspension of sentence.
4. The sentence awarded to the petitioner vide judgment, dated 4-4-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate section 30, Daska is suspended and they are directed to be released from custody during the pendency of appeal subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.