' Through this petition under Section 426, Cr.P.C., Bahawal Sher son of Muhammad Moosa and Muhammad Iqbal alias Bahawal Sher son of Allah Bakhsh - petitioners has sought suspension of their sentences and release on bail during the pendency of the main appeal before this Court, who, on conclusion of the trial in case FIR No, 616, dated 19.12.2007, registered under Sections 302/337- A(ii)/34, PPC within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Harappa District Sahiwalvide judgment dated 6.3.2012 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal was convicted and sentenced as under:-- U/S 302(b), PPC read with Section 34, PPC.
' Imprisonment for life as Tazir for committing the murder of Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) alongwith direction to pay Rs, 100,000/- each by way of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in case of default of payment of compensation the convicts shall further undergo S.I. For six months each.
' Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to them.
2. At the very outset of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition to the extent of Muhammad Iqbal alias Bahawal Sher son of Allah Bakhsh and the same is dismissed being not pressed.
3. Heard. Record Perused.
4. Although contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial Court at the time of conviction and sentenced the petitioner concluded that there is no previous enmity between the parties, the occurrence took place on a grave and sudden provocation and is also a result of sudden flare up. However, the intention of accused Arshad to murder the Ramzan deceased cannot be gathered from the role played by him at the scene of crime. He injured Muhammad Ismail PW but having no role to cause any injury on the person of deceased, so, he cannot be held vicariously liable for the murder of Ramzan deceased and delay in post mortem examination was 11 hours, which makes the case of petitioner/appellant for further probe, requires deeper appreciation of evidence, which cannot be made at this stage. The question whether in the light of evidence recorded during the trial and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioner can be convicted under Section 302(b), PPC read with Section 34, PPC, are will be considered at the time of hearing of main appeal. The newly added sub-section (1A) of Section 426, Cr.P.C., inter alia, empowers the Appellate Court to pass orders for release of the convicted person on bail, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of two years of his conviction. The appellant was convicted on 06.03.2012 whereas the instant appeal was filed on 03.04.2012. Disposal of the appeal not been delayed on account of any act or omission on the part of the petitioner/appellant. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent No, 2 for rejecting the application is that the conduct of petitioner/appellant disentitles him to the said concession by virtue of prohibition imposed vide proviso to sub-section(1A) of Section 426, Cr.P.C.
After perusing the record, I am of the firm opinion that the act of the accused is not of such nature which could bring him under the prohibitory clause of newly added sub-section (1A) to Section 426, ' Cr.P.C. No material has been pleaded on record to show that the appellant is an habitual or previously convicted offender. Indeed, a valuable life has been lost but after hearing the appeal it is yet to be decided as to whether the conviction of the petitioner/appellant is in accordance with the law or not, till such time the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefit which has been bestowed upon him by virtue of newly added provision of law viz. Sub-section (1A) to Section 426, Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the principles for suspension of sentence under Section 426, Cr.P.C. Are analogous to the principles of bail in terms of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, reliance is placed on 'Iftikhar Ahmed versus The State and others' (2014 SCM R 7) where in it was held, "The question whether in the light of the evidence recorded during trial and the law laid down by this Court could the petitioner be convicted under Section 302(b), P.P.0 , would require serious consideration during hearing of the appeal. It is well settled that the principles for suspension of sentence under Section 426, Cr.P.C. Are analogous to the principles of bail in terms of Section 497, Cr.P.C." In these circumstances, the petitioner has succeeded in making the case for suspension of his sentence in addition to that there is no chance of hearing of the main appeal as it belongs to year-2012.
5, For the above easons this petition is accepted and sentence. Of the petitioner is suspended on the basis of statutory ground subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/-( Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction, of Deputy Registrar (Judi) of this Bench. However, the petitioner is bound to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing (A.S)