SOOMAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for the offence of Itlaf-e-Slahiyyat-e-Udw (causing permanent disability). The appellant, convicted under Section 335 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Arsh. The core legal question was whether the appellant should be released on bail pending the hearing of his appeal, given the potential delay in the appellate process and the nature of the sentence. The Court held that, notwithstanding the prosecution's arguments regarding the merits of the case, the appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, the Court determined that the appellant could be released subject to furnishing security equivalent to the awarded Arsh amount, as the appellate hearing was unlikely to occur in the immediate future. The key principle laid down is that where an appeal is likely to remain pending for a significant duration, a convict may be released on bail pending appeal, provided they furnish security for the financial penalties imposed.
- Is a convict entitled to bail pending appeal if the hearing of the appeal is likely to be delayed?
- Can a sentence be suspended subject to the appellant furnishing security for the payment of Arsh?
- Does the potential delay in the appellate roster justify the suspension of a sentence for a convict?
- Section 335, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-Q, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-R, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-X, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Appellant Soomar has been convicted for offence of Itlaf-e-Slahiyyat-e-Udw as defined under section 335, P.P.C. And in the Judgment dated 29-9-2001, the learned trial Court has awarded the sentence in following terms:-- "In view of my findings of point No,1 injured Dhani Bux, sustained injuries by accused Soomar, which is declared as Itlaf-I-Salahiyat-Udw. Though police has submitted challan under sections 324, 337- F(i), 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C., but as per the Medical Report as Exh.12 that injured Dhani Bux sustained injuries on left leg and left foot, which has become permanent disability and belong to Itlaf-I-SalhahiyatUdw under section 335, P.P.C. Stands proved and have caused by accused Soomar, to injured Dhani Bux, therefore, accused Soomar is convicted and sentenced to pay Arsh which is equivalent, value Diyat i,e, Rs,2,70,493.53 (Rupees two lacs, seventy thousand, four hundred ninty three and paisas fifty three) as provided under section 337-Q, P.P.C. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. For a period of 3 years."
2. ' Learned counsel for appellant contended that while awarding 'Arsh' section 337-Q has wrongly been applied as the appropriate provision of law would otherwise be section 337-R, P.P.C. However, relying on PLD 1997 Supreme Court 1 (Muhammad Khan Shahid v. The State), he submitted that the sentence being only 3 years the appellant be released on bail as the hearing of appeal may possibly take a long time, while within the meaning of section 337-X, P.P.C. The appellant can at the most be called upon to furnish security against the amount of Arsh awarded by the trial Court. He also advanced some arguments on merits of the case.
3. ' Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Khanzada, learned State Counsel opposed the application on the ground that on merits the prosecution has a strong case. He was also of the view that the appeal may be heard within short time.
4. I am afraid the above submission of learned State Counsel may not reflect the proper position obtaining from the pendency of cases on the roster of this Circuit Court as sufficient number of appeals are pending and there is every possibility that the hearing may take sometime. As regard merit the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is outright rejected since the injured witnesses have given evidence and it is yet to be determined at the conclusion of appeal if the evidence is reliable or not. Nevertheless within the meaning of the principle laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the cited case the appellant is entitled to be released on bail on suspending the sentence subject to furnishing security against the Arsh amount.
5. ' In view of the above, the application is allowed and the sentence is suspended. The appellant be released on furnishing security equivalent to the amount of Arsh viz: Rs,2, 70,493.53 and also surety in the sum of Rs,20,000 (Rupees Twenty thousand) and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.