' This is a petition under Section 426(2-B), Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of Abdul Majeed Khan, petitioner, who alongwith his co-accused Abdul Jameel Khan, was tired in a case registered vide FIR No, 269, dated 13.11.2002, under Sections 302, 34, PPC, registered at Police Station Kot Sabzal, Tehsil Sadiq Abad, and was ultimately convicted vide judgment dated 30.11.2004, passed by the learned trial Court and sentenced to death with a direction to pay an amount of Rs, 1,00,000/-, as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default whereof he was to further undergo six months imprisonment. However, his co-accused was acquitted of the charge. The petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No, 358 of 2004, against his conviction and sentence. A reference was also forwarded by the learned trial Court (Murder Reference No, 87 of 2004), for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence of the petitioner. This Court vide judgment dated 24.11.2008, commuted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life but enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs,5,00,000/-. The Murder Reference was accordingly answered in negative. The petitioner then preferred Crl. Petition No, 34-L of 2009, before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has been pleased to grant leave in the said case vide order dated 15.04.2009.
2. It is in this background that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 426(2- B), Cr.P.C. for suspension of his sentence.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the Apex Court while granting leave to appeal to the petitioner in Para.5, of its order has observed as under: "We are persuaded to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner, in order to examine, as to whether in view of the findings of the learned High Court on the plea of self-defence, death sentence of the petitioner was rightly converted into life imprisonment, more so, when the compensation was enhanced from Rs, 1,00,000/- to Rs,5,00,000/- and as to whether the petitioner, who was awarded life imprisonment could be condemned/ penalized on account of the statement of the learned counsel, which was statedly given under some erroneous impression. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
"
4. It appears that what has been observed by the Apex Court in its leave granting order hardly supports claim of the petitioner for his release on bail by suspending his sentence. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the case titled "Muhammad Ijaz vs. The State and another" (2013 PCr.LJ 1102). This being so, this petition has no merits, which fails and the same is hereby dismissed.