SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.---Through this petition filed under section 426 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner namely Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji Muhammad seeks suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Kehror Pacca vide judgment dated 20.02.2020. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced after trial in case FIR No.283 of 2018, dated 15.06.2018, registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran in respect of offences under sections 376, 449 and 511, P.P.C. The petitioner namely Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji Muhammad was convicted and sentenced as under:-- Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji Muhammad:- Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years under sections 376 and 511, P.P.C. and directed to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the victim and in case of default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was also extended to the petitioner. The petitioner lodged the Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2020 assailing the said conviction and sentences. This is the second petition filed by the petitioner under section 426 of Cr.P.C. and the first application filed by the petitioner under section 426 of Cr.P.C. bearing Crl. Misc. No. 4067-M of 2020 was withdrawn at the very outset and dismissed by this Court on 01.06.2021. The main appeal is still pending adjudication, hence, this petition has been filed seeking suspension of sentences of the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 20.02.2020 and that the petitioner lodged the appeal on 18.03.2020 before this Court, which is still pending and the delay in disposal of the appeal has not been occasioned by the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf, hence the sentence of the petitioner may be suspended.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had been convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of a well-reasoned judgment hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail by way, of suspension of the sentence and prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has, however, fairly conceded the factual position that despite lodging of the appeal on 18.03.2020 the same has not been decided.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General at length and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The petitioner was convicted by trial Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2020 and the Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2020 was lodged on 18.03.2020, which is still pending. In the normal course of events, the petitioner would be entitled to bail on the ground that more than two years have gone by and there being no likelihood of hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the near future.
There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is previously convicted for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The criminal appeal was filed on 18.03.2020 and more than three years have gone by but the same has not been disposed of till today. The delay in hearing of the appeal has not been occasioned by the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf. There is no prospect of an early hearing of the main appeal. Reliance is placed on the case of "Liaqat and another v. The State" (1995 SCMR 1819) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under"- "In Criminal Petition No.384-L of 1993, the petitioner Liaqat son of Inayat was declined bail by the High Court on the ground that he was assigned a specific injury to the deceased in the case while his co-accused Khalid was admitted to bail on the ground that he was not attributed any specific injury to the deceased and he was in jail for more than 2 years and his appeal was not decided. It will be seen that the reason on which petitioner Liaqat was declined bail relates to the merits of the case which as held above were not relevant. The appeal is pending hearing for about 4 years and no date has been fixed so far for its final disposal. We, accordingly, convert Criminal Petition No.384-L of 1993 into appeal, allow the same and set aside the impugned order. The appellant Liaqat son of Inayat is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura."
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the sentences awarded to the petitioner namely Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji Muhammad are suspended and he is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,200,000/- (rupees one million and two hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioner namely Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji Muhammad is directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing in the main Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2020 till its final decision.