' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioners were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced inter alia to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 21-7-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. An appeal was preferred before the Lahore High Court against the conviction and sentence but the same has not been disposed of, although more than two years have passed since the appeal was preferred and it is still pending.
2. Accordingly a petition was moved under section 426(1-A) (t) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 11-10-1993. The reason for refusing the prayer for suspending the sentence was stated thus:-- "However, the delay of two years in the disposal of the appeal is a point worth consideration because the provisions of section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. Envisages the concession of bail to the petitioners on this ground alone unless the Court otherwise directs.
' I have considered this aspect of the matter carefully and dispassionately. The two petitioners, who were allegedly armed with carbine had opened fire on the deceased, who was sitting in the chamber of an Advocate in the Court premises and thus had caused his death. Both the petitioners were then caught red-handed at the spot along with their weapons of offence and were produced before the Court by P.W.6 and P.W.7, namely, S.I.Gul Fraz and F.C. Abdul Khaliq, the Nab Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail even on the point of delay of two years in the disposal of their appeal. I, therefore, refuse to exercise my discretion to allow the concession of bail to the petitioners."
' Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. On 15-12-1993 a learned Judge of this Court was pleased to allow interim bail in chambers, to the petitioners principally on the ground that in spite of the appeal having been fixed repeatedly it has not been heard within the statutory period of two years.
4. Today, however, when the petition for leave came up for hearing before the Court, learned counsel for both sides have stated that the appeal in the Lahore High Court is being fixed for hearing in the next few days. The basis on which the order of interim bail was made accordingly disappears. The High Court in full consciousness of the provision of section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. Has not found the petitioners entitled to the concession of bail in the peculiar circumstances of this case and directed "otherwise".
5. As the Lahore High Court has not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably no ground for interference with its well-reasoned order exists. The upshot is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.