MUHAMMAD AFZAL Alias KALA vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court refusing to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, who was convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction on merits, arguing that medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony, the recovery of the weapon was doubtful, and the trial court drew improper inferences regarding his conduct. The core legal question was whether the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentence and grant bail under Section 426(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary. The Court emphasized that while Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a mechanism for bail for specific sentences, the appellate court retains discretion. The Court further declined to issue directions for the early disposal of the appeal, noting that such requests should be directed to the High Court.
- Whether the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence and grant bail pending appeal constitutes an arbitrary exercise of discretion?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to deny bail to a convict sentenced to imprisonment between three and seven years under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court issue directions to the High Court regarding the day-to-day management or early disposal of a pending appeal?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 426(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM J.--- On the 26 of December 1977 a learned Magistrate Section 30, Multan convicted Muhammad Afzal alias Kala petitioner under section 307 P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo five years' R. I. And to pay a fire of Re. 1,000, in default of the payment of fine to undergo further R. I. For a further period of six months for having made a murderous assault on Akhtar Hussain Shah P. W. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was admitted by the High Court. But at the same time on the 10th of January 1976, a learned Single Judge of the Courts refused to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending the disposal of his appeal. This is petition for special leave against the order refusing interim bail to him.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He argued at length before us to contend.
3. Inter alia, that the eye-witnesses account of the occurrence was belied by the medical evidence.
4. Moreover, the recovery of the weapon of offence allegedly found from the house of the accused at his instance was doubtful and did not lend any corroboration to the ocular evidence. Also in the opinion of the learned counsel the trial Magistrate acted illegally in drawing adverse inference from the conduct of the amused who is alleged to have run away from the scene and was arrested after three days of the occurrence. Last but not the, least according to the learned counsel the conviction of the petitioner under section 307. P. P. C could not be contained and at best he was only liable for the offence under section 324, P. P. C. Bat all these contentions addressed before us pertain to the merits of the appeal. We find that even assuming for the sate of the argument that the petitioner has a prima facio case in the appeal, the learned Single Judge in the exercise of the discretion vested in him under section 426(1). Cr. P. C. Has declined to suspend the sentence andth enlarge the petitioner on bail pending the hearing of the appeal. It cannot be held that the discretion thus exercised by him under the law was arbitrary capricious. Indeed, the amended section 426(1-A) of Cr. P. C. Has for first time made a positive provision for bail to such a convicted person and lays down that an appellate Court shall, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing it otherwise directs, order a convicted person to be released on bail who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding three years but not exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of one year of his conviction.
5. Last of all the learned counsel pressed before us for the issuance of a direction to the High Court for a very early disposal of the appeal in the circumstances of this case. But we have no mind to interfere with the day to day working of the High Court and have therefore, declined to entertain this request. The petitioner may, if so advised, move the High Court in this behalf for any order in the matter. This petition has no form and is therefore, dismissed.