ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.----The petitioner Liaqat alongwith three others was tried under section 302/307/148/149 PPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Sahiwal. Acquitting the co-accused, the petitioner was convicted under section 304,1 Part 1, P. P. C. And sentenced to life imprison--ment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. Payable to the heirs of the victim, otherwise to stiffer six months' R.
1. This is vide order dated 13th July, 1980. The petitioner filed an appeal No. 963 of 1980 in which he applied for bail. The application for bail was rejected on 16th September, 1980. He filed Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 550/80 which was dismissed .On 5th November, 1980. The State had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1981 against the petitioner which was dismissed on 14th September. 1981. The complainant party has filed a revision petition which is still pending.
2. On 10th August. 1978 at 8:30 p.m. An occurrence had taken place in which the petitioner is alleged to have caused the death of Parvaiz who had suffered two incised wound; one on the left thigh and the other on the chest. Fifteen minutes later, in the hospital, the injured party is stated to have launched an attack on the petitioner and others in which the petitioner received two injuries one on the head and the other on the chest. Besides that his cousin Khalid got 37 injuries, out of which 36 with sharp-edged weapon and one with firearm on account of which he died. Out of this occurrence a case under section 148/302/149, P. P. C. Was registered against Muhammad Amin and his four brothers. The two brothers Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Salim have been found guilty under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death. The other three brothers Javaid, Shaukat and Liaqat have been found guilty under section 302/34, P. P. C. And sentenced to life imprisonment. This is vide order dated 13-7-1980. The three brothers who have been given life imprison--ment, have been released on bail by the High Court vide order dated 13th October, 1980.
Against this order, Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 600 of 1980 was filed which was dismissed on 7th June, 1981.
3. After the expiry of the statutory period of two years provided by section 426 (1-a) (c), Cr. P. C. The petitioner has applied for bail and his learned counsel contends that the petitioner's appeal against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 13th July, 1980 having not been decided within two years, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right and there are no justifiable reasons to withhold that right. He has also submitted that the petitioner himself had suffer two injuries and his cousin Khalid had received 37 injuries on account of which he had died. He has further contended that the complainant party in the case has been found guilty under section 302, P. P. C. And three of the accused who were awarded life imprisonment have been allowed bail by this Court. There--fore, the petitioner for reason of parity is also entitled to bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and so does the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel have submit--ted that the case was fixed thrice on 22nd May, 1982, 30th May, 1982 and 3rd July, 1982 and was not heard on account of the fact that the petitioner party obtained adjournments, an the first occasion for the reason that one of the counsel Mr. Muzaffar Qadir had expired, on the second occasion, connected Crl. Revisions under the Arms Act was called for from Multan Registry where those were pending and lastly for the reason that Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate who was their counsel in the Murder Reference and the Criminal Appeal in the connected matters bad been granted general adjournment. The case was listed on 6th July, 1982 but did not reach and thereafter the summer vacations commenced from 10th July, 1982.
5. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demise of Mr. Muzaffar Qadir, Advocate was under nobody's control and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer therefor.
The request for summon--ing of the record of the Crl. Revisions was genuine for the disposal of all the connected matters and that the adjournment obtained by Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate in the Murder Reference, cannot affect the petitioner in his own individual right.
6. From the perusal of the file and office notings, it appears that both the parties have been trying to get the cases fixed for disposal. Besides that the petitioner who has been convicted under section 304, Pays. I, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment, is seeking bail on the basis of the statutory provisions entitling to a convict to be released on bail if his appeal has not been decided for two years which has not been done- The conten--tion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the other side three persons who have been found guilty under section 302/34, P. P. C.
And sentenced to life imprisonment, have been allowed bail, is also a matter worth being taken into account. In an ordinary case of life imprison--ment the matter goes before a learned Single Judge and after the expiry of the statutory period if the appeal is not decided, the convict- appellant is allowed bail. The fact that the petitioner's appeal has been ordered to be heard alongwith other side's Crl. Appeal and the Murder Reference, has entailed the consequence that the petitioner's application for bail has come up before the Division Bench. We see no justifiable reason that the statutory benefit conferred on the petitioner should be withheld when that is required not to be withheld when the appeal has not been decided within,, two years after conviction. In this view of the matter the petitioner is all wed bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commis- -sioner/Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal. It goes without saying that the petitioner's appeal and the other Murder Reference and Appeal will be fixed for hearing on reopening of the High Court as these were listed earlier and if the appeal fails, the petitioner would be required to undergo the sentence. This application for bail is, therefore, thus disposed of.