' This is a petition for suspension of sentence on behalf of Qutab Ali, Ahmad, Anwar and Khadim accused who were convicted vide the impugned judgment by a Magistrate section 30 Sahiwal under section 307/34. P.P.C. And sentenced to 7 years' R.I. And a .Fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default one year R.I. Each. They were further ordered to pay a compensation of Rs, 5,000 each under 'section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default six months' R.I.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that there is every likelihood of the success of appeal firstly- because the trial of the appellants was not held according to the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and secondly, because after their first acquittal the case was remanded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge only for re-writing of judgment which was not a legal order.
' This petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State and the complainant.
3. The four petitioners were acquitted from the charge under section 307/34, P.P.C. By a Magistrate Section 30 vide judgment dated 17-9-1984. The complainant filed a revision petition. This was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal who after discussing evidence in detail on 18-7-1985 remanded the case "for re-writing the judgment in accordance with law after hearing learned counsel for both the sides". The trial Magistrate, after remand, on 5-10-1985 wrote this judgment and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
After registration of the case the police challaned only Quta accused and placed Ahmad, Anwar and Khadim accused in column No,
2. The learned trial Magistrate framed chilrge under section 307, P .P . C. Against Qutab Ali accused only and proceeded with the trial. He examined Ghulam Shabbir injured P.W. On 1-11-1982. Thereafter on the same da he summoned the remaining three accused to face trial alongwith Quta Ali. The three accused appeared in Court. Evidence against all th four accused commenced on 15-6-1983. The prosecution evidence closed on 30-5-1984. On that date it was noticed that Ahmad, Anwar an Khadim accused had not been formally charged under section 307/34, P.P.C. They were accordingly charged. Their statements under sectio 342, Cr.P.C.
Were recorded on that day and the case was adjourned to 9-7-1985 for arguments. It was ultimately finally decided on 5-10-1985. In these circumstances, without going deep into the point raised, I am of the view that the four petitioners-appellants are entitled to bail till decision of their appeal. Their sentence is suspended. The four petitioners are allowed bail on their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A .C/Duty Magistrate Sahiwal.