1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---Out of three convicts, earlier the bail was granted to appellant No.1 but the bail was denied to appellants Nos.2 and 3 on an application under section 426 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 17-11-2009. Now the present application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence under section 426(1A)(c), Cr.P.C. On, the ground of statutory delay in disposal of this appeal.
2. ' The appellant No.2 as per jail roll submitted on 2-7-2011 has already undergone 04 years, 09 months and 03 days and has earned remissions of 07 years, 04 months and 06 days and in the case of appellant No.3, he has undergone 04 years, 08 months and 09 days and earned remissions of 07 years 03 months and 10 days. This appeal was filed on 8-5-2009 against their conviction.
3. More than 2-1/2 years have already lapsed. It is contended that the delay is not attributed to the Appellants and it is only on account that the regular cases are not being proceeded, therefore, they may be granted bail under newly amended provisions.
4. ' Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh contends that this very bench has declined bail to the appellants while deciding their application under section 426, Cr. P. C . On 17-11-2009, therefore, having no case on merits, they cannot seek concession of bail. He however, otherwise concedes to the effect that there is no delay on the part of the appellants.
5. ' The report from the jail authorities states that the appellants Nos.2 and 3 have not been previously convicted in any other case and that during their confinement in the prison, their conduct was found satisfactorily. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Naveed alias Naveedi v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 1971 and Liaqat and another v. The State (1995 SCM R 1819), wherein it has been held by the honourable Court that the right of accused under section 426(1-A), Cr.P.C. Is an independent of his right to seek suspension of his sentence by the Appellate Court on merits under section 426(1-A), C Cr.P.C, therefore such right can be exercised by him notwithstanding the fact that the, appellate Court in exercise of its discretion had earlier declined bail on merits under section 426(1), Cr.P.C. The case of Liaqat supra insofar as the plea of suspension of sentence under newly amended provisions is concerned, is on fours of this case.
6. ' In the circumstances, sentence of the appellants Nazeer Ahmed and Zahid is suspended under section 426(1A), Cr.P.C. Upon furnishing solvent surety is the sum of Rs.200,000 each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.
7. ' Application stands disposed of.