' The petitioner was convicted on 6th November, 1977 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. The petitioner challenged his conviction by filing an appeal in this Court which has not been heard so far. The petitioner has applied for the suspension of order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by submitting application under section 426 (1-A), Cr. P. C. On the ground that his appeal has not been disposed of within two years from the date of his conviction. Office has reported that the present appeal is likely to be fixed for hearing in the month of March, 1980.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that since the petitioner's appeal is likely to be disposed of after four or five months, there is no ground for suspending the order of sentence. According to the learned counsel for the State the provisions of section 426 (1-A) (c) are not mandatory and the appellate Court is not bound to release the convict on bail merely if appeal could not be heard within a particular period.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, has pointed out that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail unless it could be shown that there were certain reasons for which he was not entitled to be released on bail. Learned, counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on wholly insufficient evidence which otherwise is also not reliable. The recovery of hatchet allegedly used by the petitioner in the commission of the murder of Piran Ditta relied upon by the prosecution as a piece of corroborative evidence was not found to be stained with human blood and as such it could not connect the petitioner with the commission of the murder of Piran Ditta. The eye- witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case have been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has a good case on merits.
3. I have considered the arguments of the parties' counsel. Without expressing any view on the merits of the case I am unable to find any reason for which bail should be refused to the petitioner.
The provisions of section 426 (1-A) (c), are quite clear that the convicted peison is to be released on bail if his appeal has not been disposed of within a period of two years of his conviction unless the Court finds some reasons for not allowing bail to him. As noticed above there are no such reasons pointed out by the learned counsel for the State on account of which the prayer made by the petitioner should be refused. I accordingly allow the petitioner's application filed under section 426 (1-A) (c), Cr. P. C. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of A. C., Bhalwal.