' This is bail application filed by the present appellant, who has been convicted under section 466, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and has ben awarded sentence of five years' R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year for committing forgery in the Revenue record in respect of agricultural land.
2. The above bail application was opposed by the learned A.A.-G. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi on the ground that as the sentence is more than three years, the case falls under section 426(1-A)(b), Cr.P.C. On the other hand Mr. Samiullah Qureshi learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since the appellant was tried under section 466, P.P.C. Which provides maximum sentence of 7 years, the case does not fall within the prohibition provided in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And, therefore, the appellant is entitled to bail.
3. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi has relied upon the case of Raisuddin v. The State 1971 SCMR1 and the case of Muhammad Aslam and another v. State 1971 5 C M R 511. On the other hand Mr. Samiullah Qureshi has relied upon the (1) case of Bahar Khan v. The State 1969 C M R 81, (2) the case of Maqsood v. Ali Muhammad and another 1971 SCM R 657, (3) the case of Hata and others v. The State PLD 1967 Lah. 1302 and (4) the case of Parvaiz Akhtar v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 184
4. In the first case relied upon by the learned A.A.G. a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to decline petition for leave which was filed by a petitioner who was convicted alongwith 7 others under section 304, Part II read with section 34, P.P.C. And was sentenced to R.I.
For five years. It was observed that the petitioner may move the High Court if his appeal would not be disposed of within one year. In the second case also a Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant leave against order of refusal of bail by the High Court to the petitioners who were convicted under sections 326/34 and 323/34, P.P.C. And were awarded sentence of five years'
R.I.
5. Adverting to the cases relied upon by Mr. Samiullah Qureshi, it may be observed that in the first case a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant leave against the refusal of the High Court suspending the sentence of transportation for life awarded to the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. And observed that power to grant bail under section 426, Cr.P.C. Is not wider than under sections 497 and 498, and that strong grounds are required to be made out in order to entitle the convict to bail under section 426, Cr.P.C. The above case does not help the learned counsel for the applicant. In the second case a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant leave against the order of the High Court admitting the private respondents to bail though convicted and awarded to transportation for life on the ground of illness and old age on the basis of the medical report of the doctor incharge of the jail hospital. In that context it was observed that under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. a sick or infirm person may be released on bail even where there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has been guilty of offence punishable with death or transportation for life. It was held that under section 426, Cr.P.C.
The High Court had ample power to suspend the above sentence of transportation for life on a ground sustainable. The above case has also no relevancy to the instant case as the appellant in the instant case is neither sick nor infirm nor of an old age. In the third case a learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore held that a person convicted of a bailable offence on filing of appeal is entitled to bail as matter of right and that the appeal is in continuation of the original case. In the above case the accused were convicted under sections 148, 323 and 325 but it is not clear what was the period of sentence. Referring to the last case it may be stated that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that the principles for suspending sentence under section 1426, Cr.P.C. Are same as granting bail under section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. From perusal of section 426(1-A)(b), Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person who has been awarded sentence for a period exceeding three years is not entitled to bail as a matter of right before the expiry of one year period. However, it cannot be denied that in a fit case the Court is competent to admit the convict to bail for a cogent reason like illness, old age etc. In the present case the appellant has failed to make out any cogent reason for suspending the sentence of five years which has been awarded to him. The appellant according to the judgment of the learned trial Court committed forgery in the Revenue record and, therefore, I am not inclined to admit the applicant to bail. The application is dismissed. However, he will be at liberty to move an application on the expiry of one year period.