SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through the captioned application under section 426, Cr.P.C. (M.A.
No.3030/2015), appellant has agitated his enlargement on bail, as he was convicted with short sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are series of points which were not considered by the learned trial Court as well as material irregularities have been committed during the course of trial. He further contended that despite moving application by the appellant to record the evidence of PWs in both criminal cases separately which were lodged against the appellant and another accused, but his application was declined and evidence recorded in Spl. Case No.6 of 2014 was pasted in present case. He further contended that appellant had also moved application under section 540, Cr.P.C. To call ASI Asghar Sehto of CIA as defense witness, who was not examined by the prosecution, but said application was also declined. He further contended that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by complainant at the instance of his real uncle namely, Hamzo Kumbhar, who is close friend of complainant SIP Shamsddin Khokharat, and disputed with him over a plot and such civil litigation is also pending between the parties. He further contended that appellant had also cross-examined complainant on said peculiar ground. He further contended that appellant recorded his statement on oath and defense witnesses were also examined by pleading same facts and ulterior motives of complainant for foisting the alleged recovery upon the appellant but same were not properly appreciated and considered judiciously by the learned trial Court. He further contended that the sentence awarded to the appellant is less than 05 years, which is a short sentence, as such appellant may be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned D.P.G. Extended no objection for extension of concession of bail.
4. Perusal of the material available on record and consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties emanate that appellant was charged under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the recovery of 1250 grams Charas. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him for 04 years and 06 months with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default to further undergo for 05 months. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to appellant.
5. Indeed, the sentence awarded to the appellant is a short sentence and the disposal of main appeal would take some time as paper book has not been prepared by the office and considering the quantum of backlog of the cases, there is no probability for the early hearing of the instant appeal. In case of Nazeer Ali alias Nazeer v. The State (2011 YLR 403), the learned Division Bench of this Court had suspended the sentence during pendency of appeal and appellant was enlarged on bail on the ground of short sentence.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances supported with identical case law, the sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended during the pendency of main appeal and the appellant is admitted on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lac) and P.R.
Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.
7. The Superintendent of concerned jail is directed to release the appellant forthwith if he is no more required in any other custody case. Office is directed to prepare paper book and fix the instant appeal in Court as per roster.