' The appellants were convicted and sentenced to R.I. For life and other sentences including that of fine for killing Abdul Razaak and causing injuries to Atta Muhammad by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur vide judgment, dated 7-2-1998.
2. The appellants have prayed for suspension of their sentences and release on bail during the pendency of their appeal by invoking the provisions of section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C.
3. The grounds pressed in support of the application by Mr. Nizamuddin Baluch mainly are that the appellants have remained in jail continuously for a period of more than two years and the appeal has not been disposed of and that the appellants are not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. Reliance was placed upon the cases reported as KLR 1994 Criminal Cases 87 (2) 1996 PCr.LJ 150 (3) 1995 PCr.LJ 1522.
4. Mr. Dost Muhammad Bullo learned counsel appearing for the complainant in the case opposed the prayer of the appellants and argued that the allegation of no overt act against the appellants cannot be pressed at this stage, the appellants were convicted for an offence of murder, therefore, they were not entitled to be released on bail. He placed reliance upon the cases reported as (1)
1997 SCMR 1521 (2) 1998 SCMR 80 and (3) 1994 PCr.LJ 2479.
5. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned A.A.-G. For the State did not oppose the appellants' prayer and stated that the appellants were entitled to be released on bail under the aforesaid provision of section 426 as by remaining in jail for nearly two and a half years they have earned a right entitling them to the grant of their prayer.
6. I have gone through the case-law referred by the complainant's counsel. The counsel has failed to distinguish and understand the meaning of the two provisions namely subsections (1) and (1-A) of section 426. The subsection (1-A) creates a statutory right in favour of a convict-appellant whereas subsection (1) does not. In none of the referred cases provisions of subsection (1-A) were attracted. The case-law thus, relied upon by the complainant's counsel was not applicable in this case.
7. Hence, the appellants-convicts are entitled to the grant of prayer under clause (c) of subsection (1-A) of section 426, Cr.P.C. There are no reasons for refusing the same.
8. Accordingly the sentences passed against the appellants are suspended. They shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing a solvent surety each in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 Rupees two lacs only and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.
9. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,1106 of 2000 was disposed of by a short order, dated 17-7- 2000. Above are the reasons for the same.