Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LIAQAT ALI VS Respondent: THE STATE
1995 P Cr
1995 P Cr. L J 668
[Lahore]
Before Khan Riaz-ud-Din Ahmad; J
LIAQAT ALI ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.215/B of 199=1 in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 1990, decided on 11th May 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 426(1-A)(c)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 452---Suspension of sentence---Despite the lapse of more than two years appeal filed by accused against his conviction and sentence had not been decided, nor it was likely to be heard in the near future---Record did not suggest anything to refuse the concession of bail earned by the accused due to efflux of time---Sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was consequently suspended and he was admitted to bail accordingly.
Malik Rab Nawaz Noon for Petitioner
Malik Khuda Dad Khan for the State.
ORDER
This is an application for suspension of execution of sentence and for the grant of bail by Liaqat Ali petitioner who vide judgment, dated 5-12-1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi stands convicted under section 302, P.P.C: and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000 in default whereof to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. He was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000 to the legal heirs of Muhammad Amin deceased as compensation, or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for six months. The petitioner/appellant was also convicted under section 452, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 2 months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner/appellant was also granted the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the statutory period of two years has already elapsed but the appeal of the petitioner has not yet been decided; that there is no likelihood of the same to be heard in the near future. On the other hand learned State counsel has not seriously opposed this petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner was convicted on 5-12-1990, as such, a period of more than two years had already elapsed but his appeal had not-so far been decided. Besides, there is no likelihood of the same to be heard in the near future. There is nothing on record to suggest that the concession of bail thus earned by the petitioner due to efflux of time, as contemplated by section'426 (1-A)(c) of the Cr. P.C. could be refused to him.
In view of the above circumstances, I am inclined to suspend the execution of the petitioner's sentence and admit him on bail subject to his 8 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.75,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi.
NH.Q./L-84/L Sentence suspended.