ORDER MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J. - Dais Muhammad petitioner/appellant No. 2 as being pro-convict after having filed an appeal to be acquitted of all charges have instituted an application under Section 426, Cr.P.C, be suspended his quantum of sentence imposed upon him as under;-
(i) Life imprisonment under Section 302(b), P.P.C, with payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Azizan Bibi and in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months.
(ii) Two years' imprisonment under Section 148, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run pari passu and he was also extended the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant No. 2 contends that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.; post to the registration of the case about 43 days later, on a supplemental statement of the complainant, he was involved; processual investigation resolved him innocent, consequently, complainant being averse to the police opinion filed a private criminal complaint In which trial was concluded and repugned punishing judgment was announced. Further submits that, prima facie, no legal evidence exists against the petitioner to sustain his conviction and sentence; every prospect exists of his acquittal, otherwise, stipulated period of two years has elapsed but the appeal has not yet been decided, its non- decision cannot be attributed to the petitioner and in the near future its final decision appears to be in somber on account of death sentence of the co- convict namely Shoukat Ali and the petitioner is neither hardened criminal nor desperate and has never ever been involved in any act of terrorism and is a previous non-convict, therefore, quantum of sentence imposed upon him may be suspended.
3. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed Submissions astutely by deft and argued that learned Trial Court after the proper appraisal of the material available before it had rightly drawn a conclusion in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Further maintains that in incident, three persons have lost their lives besides two were injured; the volume of the incident is so high, the same prima facie persuade to conclude the element of desperation was displayed by the petitioner and his particeps criminis, therefore, he deserves denial of relief sought for.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Without touching the merits of the case, it has been noticed that petitioner is behind the bars since the pronouncement of the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006, more than two years have elapsed but appeal of the petitioner has not been decided so decision cannot be attributed to the petitioner Dais Muhammad by any stretch of imagination and no preternatural circumstance has been noticed warranting rejection of instant petition, therefore, the same is allowed. Resultantly, quantum of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is suspended till final decision of appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00, 000/- (two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of DR (Jud1.) of this Court. He is directed to appear before this Court incessantly till final decision of appeal.