Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Nawaz BhattiCh. Pervaiz Aftab,Rana Tahir Mehmood
2006 P Cr
2006 P Cr. L J 853
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J
MUHAMMAD IMRAN and another----Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2005, decided on 20th February, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 201, 202, 323, 319 & 34---Petition for suspension of sentence---Sentence awarded in case was short one (five years)---Incident was an accidental one and hearing of appeal could take some time---Sentence awarded to petitioner was suspended, in circumstances.
Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1999 SCMR . 2589; Zahid Hussain v. The State 2005 MLD 1934 and Nazir Ahmad v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 657 ref.
Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for Petitioners.
Rana Tahir Mehmood for the State.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners were sentenced to five years' R.I. each as Tazir under section 323, P.P.C. and each of them were also convicted under section 319, P.P.C. and ordered to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased Jaffar All in a private complaint filed by Abdul Hameed under sections 302/202/201/34, P.P.C. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was however, extended to both of them. The instant petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. has been moved for suspension of sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are in jail since the date of judgment; that the sentence is short one and the hearing of appeal may take some time, therefore, the sentence is liable to be suspended and the petitioner may be allowed bail. He has relied on Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1999 SCMR 2589; Zahid Hussain v. The State 2005 MLD 1934 and Nazir Ahmad v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 657.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the learned trial Court has already shown leniency and that the petitioners have not been awarded full dose of sentence, therefore they are not entitled to the relief, being sought.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The sentence is short one. This is an accidental case and hearing of the appeal may take some time. The sentence awarded to the petitioners is suspended subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R.(J.) of this Court.
H.B.T./M-102/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.