' This order will dispose of bail applications filed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 641 of 1978, 644 of 1978 and 652 of 1978 instituted against three judgments all dated 2-7-1978 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore-I, in cases Nos. 18 of 1977, 21 of 1977 and 29 of 1977, respectively.
2. All the convictions are under section 409, P.P.C. In Appeal No, 641 the petitioner has been sentenced to R.I. For 2 years and a fine of Rs,4,000 in default of which further R.I. For one year while in Appeal No, 644 of 1978 he has been sentenced to 3 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,12,000 in default of payment of fine further R.I. For 1-1/2 years. Similarly in Appeal No, 652 of 1978 he has been sentenced to 2 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,7,500 in default of payment of which he is to undergo further R.I. For 15 months. There is no order in any of these impugned judgments that the sentences awarded therein will run concurrently, which means that these are to run consecutively. The petitioner has been convicted in the above cases on account of criminal misappropriation committed by him in the first case in respect of 200 yards of cloth worth Rs,3,218 while in the second and third cases on account of misappropriation of 1,100 pairs of Chappals valued at Rs,10,450 and 172 pairs of black Chappal, 77 Caps and certain other articles worth Rs,5,520.69.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reading of evidence would show that the offence under section 409, P.P.C. Is not made out. He submits that since the offence has not been made out, the petitioner should be allowed bail. The other ground urged for allowing bail to the petitioner is that sentences are short and there is likely to occur delay in disposal of appeals.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the suspension of sentences and allowing of bail on the ground that the petitioner has been guilty of serious offence under section 409, P.P.C. Whilst he was posted as Incharge Moharrir Wardi Godown at Police Station Gujranwala.
He misappropriated cloth and various other articles which were in his custody and as a result 31 cases including the three under present appeals were registered against him and in all the cases he had been sentenced to various terms. He has further submitted that these appeals have been filed a few days back and at present it cannot be said that such a long delay is likely to occur that sentences awarded to the petitioner may run out before the appeals are heard.
5. I am of the view that this is not the stage at which the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties touching the merits of the case can be considered and discussed: Any observations on the merits of the case now made may prejudice the case of any of the parties. The appropriate stage for such a discussion would be at the time of hearing of the appeals.
6. In so far as the ground of delay in the disposal of appeals is concerned, present is not the stage at which it can be said that the appeals may not be heard before the sentences run out, especially when the sentences awarded in all the cases at present before me have not been order to run concurrently.
7. In view of the foregoing, I reject the bail applications in all the three appeals. It may, however, be observed, that in case the appeals are not fixed within the period prescribed under section 426-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner would be entitled to move afresh for allowing bail to him.
Applications rejected.