1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By this application, the appellant has prayed for releasing him on bail during pendency of appeal.
2. ' The learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned conviction and sentence is opposed to the facts and evidence available on record and that appellant is in custody since last more than 4 years.
3. ' The learned Assistant A.-G. Submits that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and unless the judgment is fully scrutinized, the grant of bail at this stage is not proper.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. It is the right of every litigant that his case should be decided without loss of time. This appeal is pending since 2003 and I have been informed that paper book has been prepared but the case could not be listed for regular hearing due to heavy pendency.
5. ' Bail pending appeals in the offences falling under the prohibitory clause cannot be granted unless it is shown that conviction is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and is not ultimately sustainable. The grant of bail without considering or ascertaining question of guilt or innocence on' merits through appraisal of evidence is not justified. For the above observation reliance is being placed on the reported case of Muhammad Saleem v. The State, PLD 2006 SC 483.
6. ' The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant goes to the root of the 'case which could only be appreciated at the time of hearing of appeal when the entire evidence available on record would be thrashed out. It is also now well-settled principle of law that while hearing an application under section 426, Cr.P.C., deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2003 SCM R 911.
7. ' In view of the above, it will be proper that this application be disposed of with direction to office to fix this matter for regular hearing within 3 months.