' Muzaffar Shah and Muhammad Ashraf, petitioners, being convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Were sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,25,000 and in default they have been directed to undergo two years' R.I.
2. The allegation against the petitioners was that they alongwith three acquitted accused committed the murder of one Muhammad Sharif, brother of the complainant Muhammad Hanif.
3. It was argued that Muhammad Sharif, deceased was an immoral person as according to his younger brother Muhammad Hanif, he was keeping illicit relations with Mst. Nasim cousin of petitioner No,1 and Mst. Amiran ,cousin of petitioner No,2 so the immoral persons always meet such fate. It was argued that maximum leniency should have been shown towards the petitioners in this case, where no sympathy can be shown towards such a deceased. Lastly it was argued that the petitioners are, otherwise, entitled to the suspension of sentence because a period of two years has elapsed since they were convicted and sentenced and there is no likelihood of the appeal being taken up, heard and disposed of in the near future for which the petitioners cannot be blamed.
4. On this point, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment reported as Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State 1991 SCMR 1459, wherein it was held that "merely stating by the High Court that case was not proper one for enlarging accused on bail could hardly constitute a good reason justifying withholding a benefit expressly given by the Code of Criminal Procedure to an accused.
5. On the point of statutory period of two years having passed the learned Assistant Advocate- General conceded this application.
5-A. After having heard the learned counsel of both sides I have also perused the record very minutely. I find that the case against the petitioners was registered on 4-8-1989 and since then they are in the jail as undertrial and convict prisoners. The charge against the petitioners is that they committed the murder of Muhammad Sharif, deceased under grave and sudden provocation because he had illicit relations with two cousin sisters of the petitioners and the deceased was killed when he was in a naked position.
6. The petitioners were convicted on 26-10-1991. As the appeal remained undisposed of for a period of more than two years, hence they made this application.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has not been able to point out any reason that why the petitioners should not be released on bail when a statutory period of two years has already passed and their appeal has not been disposed of and nor there is likelihood of its disposal in the near future.
8. For the foregoing reasons and after placing reliance upon a judgment (supra) I direct that the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners shall be suspended and both the petitioners shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail, bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.