1. Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, J.--The captioned application has been filed under Section 426 Cr.P.C. For suspension of the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2015 and release of the convict appellant on bail. Precise facts of the case are that a case in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307/34 APC, 15/15 IPL and 17(3) on the complaint of Ch. Nasarullah was registered against Muhammad Shahbaz, applicant herein, and others vide F.I.R No,76/93 on 08.09.1993 at Police Station Barnala. The police after completion of the investigation, presented the challan before the competent Court on 09.07.2011. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the District Court of criminal jurisdiction Bhimber convicted the applicant under Section 3 IPL and was awarded 10 years R.I. And Rs,5,00,000/- compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased Sanaullah. He was also sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine under Sections 147/148 and 149 APC. He was also convicted to 1 year simple imprisonment under Section 427 APC. The convict-appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the sentence awarded to him whereas the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the appeal for enhancement of the sentence, which are subjudice before this Court and are awaiting disposal. The captioned application has been filed under Section 426 Cr.P.C. For suspension of impugned judgment.
2. ' Raja Inamullah Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the convict-applicant vehemently argued that the applicant himself appeared before the police on 06.07.2011 and is behind the bars from the said date. The learned Advocate further submitted that there is no chance of absconsion of the applicant because he is a local person and appeared before the police by himself, therefore, is entitled to the concession of bail. The learned Advocate submitted that there is a huge contradiction in the evidence led by the prosecution, therefore, there are sufficient chances of acceptance of the appeal filed by the convict-appellant and the benefit of the same can be extended in favour of the applicant at this stage. The learned Advocate argued that applicant has served 3 years 11 month 4 days of the awarded sentence and if ultimately his appeal is accepted and the convict-applicant is acquitted of the charge then there would be no compensation for curtailment of liberty, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
3. ' Ch. Farid Anwar, the learned AAG, on the other hand, opposed the application and submitted that applicant is involved in a heinous offence and a specific role has been attributed to him, therefore, he is not entitled 4.o concession of bail. The learned Advocate submitted that accused-applicant remained, absconded from 08.09.1993 to 1999 and in 1999 after obtaining interim bail he again stood absconded till 2011, hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail by his conduct. The learned Advocate further submitted that after being convicted by the trial Court the convict applicant has lost the presumption of innocence hence, is not entitled to any leniency of the Court.
4. ' Raja Muhammad Nadeem Khan, the learned counsel for Respondents No, 2 to 7 has adopted the agreement advanced by the learned AAG and submitted that after the conviction of the convict applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage.
5. ' We have heard file learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. ' It may be stated that while deciding application under Section 426 Cr.P.C. The Court has to consider the quantum of sentence and time likely to be taken in the decision of appeal as has been held in case titled Muhammad Bilal v. The State and another, [2008 SCR 100]. The relevant observation is as under: "It is pertinent to note that this Court shall not embark upon the merits of the case at this stage and shall not indulge into the meticulous appreciation of evidence. While considering the application for suspension of the sentence, the Court has to consider the quantum of sentence and time likely to be taken in the decision of appeal."
7. ' A perusal of the record reveals that the applicant besides, has been convicted under Section 3 IPL and has been awarded a lesser punishment of 10 years R.I. The applicant is behind the bars for the last 3 years 11 months and 4 days and he has challenged the validity of the sentence awarded to him through appeal. Though the applicant remained absconded till 2011 but he himself appeared before the police, therefore, we are of the view that his release on bail would be in the interest of justice because law is well settled that bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment and if ultimately appeal filed by him is dismissed he has to undergo and serve the remaining sentence. It is pertinent to note here that in a case of capital punishment the learned trial Court on the score of benefit of doubt and material discrepancies/contradictions has passed the order of lesser punishment which is a material ground for suspension of the impugned order. So far quantum of sentence is concerned the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Crl. Appeal No, 44/2010 titled Zia Akbar vs. The State and others, referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, has suspended the judgment impugned therein whereby the convict was awarded 14 years rigorous imprisonment, whereas in the instant case the convict applicant has been convicted to 10 year rigorous imprisonment.
8. ' Before parting with the case it may be stated that the main appeals were transferred to headquarter vide order dated 23.04.2015, however, the same were again transmitted to this Circuit in view of the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties but despite that the learned counsel for the complainant has not argued the main appeals, therefore, there is no likelihood for decision of the main appeals in near future.
9. ' In view of above the application is accepted. The impugned judgment is suspended and it is ordered that the convict-applicant shall be released on bail forthwith provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000/- (two millions) as well as personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate First Class Bhimber/ Mirpur, if is not required in any other case.