Muhammad Azeem vs The State
This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Azeem challenging his conviction and sentence under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, through which he was sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the pendency of his criminal appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking the suspension of his sentence and release on bail, primarily on the ground that he had already undergone a major portion of his sentence and his appeal was not likely to be fixed for hearing soon, which would render the appeal infructuous. The Lahore High Court examined the jail report confirming the period of incarceration already served by the petitioner and noted that the State did not oppose the application. The Court held that since a substantial portion of the sentence had been served and the appeal could not be heard in a timely manner, the application was genuine. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the trial court judgment and admitted the petitioner to bail during the pendency of the appeal, establishing the principle that post-conviction bail may be granted when a major portion of the sentence has been served and the appeal is unlikely to be heard expeditiously.
- Whether suspension of sentence can be granted when the accused has undergone a major portion of the sentence and the appeal is not likely to be fixed for hearing?
- Does the absence of opposition from the State influence the grant of bail pending appeal?
- Can the operation of a conviction judgment be suspended during the pendency of a criminal appeal?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22(b), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.-- Muhammad Azeem, petitioner/appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore in case FIR 247/2000, dated 26.9.2000 registered at P.S. FIA (Passport Cell), Lahore under Section 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and vide judgment dated 16.9.2003, he was convicted under Section 22(b) of the Emigration Act and sentenced to 8 years' R.I. And a i.e of Rs.7,00,000/-, in default of payment of time to further undergo S.I. For six months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was, however, extended in his favour.
2. He challenged his conviction and sentence vide Crl. Appeal No. 1 803/2003. Through the instant application his suspension of sentence has been sought mainly on the ground that he has undergone major portion of the sentence and by appeal has not been fixed so far and by the time the appeal will come for hearing he will be released from jail after serving out his entire sentence and his appeal will become infructuous.
3. Report was sought from the Superintendent Central Jail. Lahore and report dated 3'11.2003 has been received. According to report the petitioner has undergone six years' 27 days and the remaining part of his sentence is one year 11 months and 3 days, therefore, I find that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is genuine and the same has also not been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. In view of the above, the operation of the impugned judgment dated 16.9.2003 is suspended and the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like account to the satisfaction of Trial Court till the decision of the appeal.