1. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant Amanullah has been convicted and sentenced for various offences vide Judgment dated 18th March, 2016, but these sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. However, in view of concurrent sentences the maximum period of his sentence is 5 years and as per Jail-Roll of the appellant, he has already undergone its major portion. Learned counsel further contends that the remaining sentence is short one, and the hearing of appeal will take time, therefore, the sentence awarded" to appellant may be suspended till decision of the main' appeal and -appellant may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon 2008 SCM R 1439 and 1999 SCM R 2589.
2. Learned DDPP raised objection to grant of application.
3. Perusal of record shows that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for various offences for a different period, which is shown below:-- (i)Under Section 221, P.P.0 r/w. Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947, to suffer R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of nonpayment of fine he shall suffer R.I. for six months more.
4. (ii)Under Section 222, P.P.0 r/w. Section with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947, to suffer R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of nonpayment of fine he shall suffer R.I. for six months more.
5. (iii)Under Section 225, P.P.0 r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947, to suffer R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine he shall suffer R.I. for six months more.
6. The Jail-Roll of the appellant shows that he has served out sentence of five years; three months and 23-days, including remissions upto 25.5.2016 and un-expired person of his sentence is one year, two months and seven days and keeping in view, the concurrent sentences, maximum period of sentence of the appellant would be five years, and as per his Jail-Roll, the appellant has already served out major portion of his sentence and remaining sentence is short one and final adjudication of this Appeal will take t:me. In view of the above, while relying upon case of Adnan A.
7. Khuwaja v. The State (2008 SCM R 1439), Makhdoom Javed Hashmi v. The State (2008 SCM R 165) and case of Abdul Hameev. Muhammad Abdullah (1999 SCM R 2589), the sentence awarded to appellant is hereby suspended and he is admitted to bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 300,000/- (Three Hundred Thousand Rupees) and P.R bond in the like amount before the Additional Registrar of this Court. .