' The petitioner alongwith Ghulam Murtaza was tried under section 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. For the murder of one Muhammad Manzoor and causing injuries to Paris Bibi and Mehallan Bibi for an occurrence which took place on 27-10-1994. He was convicted under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I and Rs,5,000 as Daman for causing injuries to Mst. Mehallan Bibi during the aforesaid occurrence. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. The principal accused Ghulam Murtaza was however, convicted and sentenced to death under sections 302, P.P.C. (b), P.P.C. For committing Qatl-i-Amd of Manzoor deceased and was directed to pay Rs,20,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. He was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For committing murderous assault upon Paris Bibi and sentenced to 10 years' R.I and a fine of Rs,5,000 alongwith compensation of Rs,5,000 to be paid to the aforesaid injured P.W.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since he had been acquitted on the charge under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. And was convicted under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. And to pay Rs,5,000, therefore, he is entitled to bail particularly when he had been given benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. While he had already undergone four months' detention after his arrest in this case and had also undergone about two months' R.I. After his conviction in this case. The appeal is also not likely to be heard in near future which would call for the consideration of the suspension of sentence passed upon the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, opposed the application on the ground that the order of acquittal relating to the petitioner of the charge under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Is not sustainable in the eyes of law and that the complainant is challenging that acquittal in revision or appeal and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the suspension of sentence. Secondly, it is contended tftat his vicarious liability alongwith the main accused was not distinguishable and as such, his acquittal aforesaid was not maintainable in the eyes of law.
4. Learned State Counsel, however, contended that the sentence is short and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the very near future, therefore, any appropriate order be passed.
5. We have considered the foregoing facts. The appeal or revision against the acquittal has not yet been preferred by the complainant and as such, that cannot be considered as a ground for withholding the bail or suspension of sentence particularly when the same is two years' R.I. Out of which two months have already passed and prior to that, the petitioner remained in detention for about four months after his arrest in this case, whereafter, he was released on bail. He has also been given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And hence, the remaining sentence would be short enough to entitle him to bail particularly when his appeal is not likely to be heard in the very near future on account of heavy work load in this Court. The petition is accordingly allowed. The sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. He shall be released on bail provided he deposits Rs,5,000 i,e,, the amount of Daman in this Court which shall be payable only in accordance with the final decision given in this appeal.
6. With the above observations, the petition is allowed.