Pakistan Case Law
2002 P Cr. L J 1964

ROSHAN ALI SHAH vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2002 P Cr. L J 1964
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Appeal No,D-96 of 2000 Miscellaneous Application No,1107 of 2000
Date2000-12-05
Judge(s)Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Zia Parvez
ResultApplication allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal by the appellant, who was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appellant contended that he was denied the opportunity to engage legal counsel during the trial, causing significant prejudice. The court initially noted ambiguity regarding whether the trial court provided the accused with a fair opportunity to secure representation. However, the application for bail was primarily grounded on the short duration of the sentence and the likelihood that the appeal would not be disposed of within one year. The State Counsel did not oppose the request for suspension of sentence and release on bail. Finding the sentence duration to be short, the court exercised its discretion to suspend the sentence and admitted the appellant to bail, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 100,000 and a P.R. bond of an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal if the sentence is of a short duration?
  • Does the lack of opportunity to engage counsel during trial constitute grounds for bail pending appeal?
suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailright to counselshort sentenceappellate bail

ORDER

' Learned counsel submits that it is apparent from the judgment itself that the appellant/accused was not chance to engage a counsel of his choice which has gravely prejudiced him. On this ground alone, learned counsel says that the appellant should be admitted to bail Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned State Counsel is also of the same view.

' We have heard both the learned counsel and are of the view that per the judgment itself it is clear that the accused was appearing in person however, it is not clear whether the accused was given a chance to engage counsel by the learned trial Court. Under these circumstances, we would order that the R&Ps be summoned before my orders are passed at this stage.

2. This is an application whereby -it has been prayed that as the sentence is a short one viz. Three years plus fine of Rs,5,000 it may be suspended on the ground that the appeal is not likely to be disposed of within one year. Learned State Counsel has no objection to this prayer and the release of the appellant on bail.

' Since the period of sentence is a short one. We would suspend the ,same and order the release of appellant on bail subject to his furnishing a sumely in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (on hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the- satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. Order accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.