' This application under section 426, Cr.P.0 for suspension of execution of sentence has arisen from Cr.A. No,4 of 1997 filed by one Said Wali on 4-1-1997. The appellant was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge Charsadda, vide judgment dated 11-12-1996, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. He was also burdened with payment of a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within the contemplation of section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Suspension of sentence is sought on the ground that the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life but his appeal has not been decided within a period of two years of his conviction.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence that in view of delay in disposal of his appeal the appellant was well within his right to seek bail under section 426(1-A), Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand, opposed the application.
5. We are not inclined to allow the application because disposal-related delay does not create any right to bail as held in Abdur Razzaq and others v. The State (1983 SCM R 234). Reference may also be made to Shahbaz v. The State (1992 SCM R 1903) wherein it has been observed that inordinate delay did not create any right to the suspension of the sentence under section 426, (1-A) Cr.P.C.
Because if this argument is accepted it would imply automatic release on bail of convicts in all cases which, in any case, is not the intention of the law.
6. No doubt the language employed in subsection (1-A) of section 426, Cr.P.C. Contains the expression "shall" but the petitioner cannot make any mileage from it as the words "for reasons to be recorded by it in writing" appearing after the said expression leave no room for doubt that the discretion of the appellate Court has not been taken away altogether and it is still vested with the power to decline suspension of sentence after recording reasons.
7. As regards the reasons for rejecting the application it would suffice to say that the appellant is prima facie connected with the crime for which he was charged and convicted and in view of huge backlog, horrendous increase in the volume of litigation and present working strength of the Court it is not possible to dispose of the appeal within the prescribed period. However, it will be fixed for final hearing as soon as possible. In the result, the application is dismissed.