' The learned counsel for the petitioners has orally requested to allow him to add section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In the petition. According to him, it was inadvertently omitted to be mentioned in the same.
2. The omission seems to be based on inadvertence. Hence the request in this regard has been allowed in the interest of justice. He has made the necessary addition with his signature today before the Court.
3. Allah Rakha and Muhammad Ameen petitioners through the instant petition under section 331, P.P.C. Read with sections 497/561-A, Cr.P.C. Seek their release on bail to enable them to make payment of Diyat in case F.I.R. No,103 dated 17-3-1998 under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan.
4. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the petitioners stood convicted in the said case vide the judgment dated 21-4-1999 recorded by Rao Akbar Ali, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan.
5. It has been contended on their behalf that they have served out their entire substantive sentences but have not been released because that they had not paid the amount of Diyat as directed by the learned trial Court; and that they are poor persons and so financially weak to pay Diyat in lump sum, hence they may be allowed bail to enable them to pay the amount of Diyat. In this regard reference has been made to the case of Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 934 (Lahore) and Muhammad Saeed v. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Faisalabad 2000 PCr.LJ 2 (Lahore).
6. As against the same the learned State Counsel has not opposed the petition.
7. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides and gone into the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
8. The Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan vide his memo. No,CT.5257, dated 8-5-2003 has reported that they had served out their entire substantive sentences after earning remission and are now confined and suffering simple imprisonment alone for want of payment of Diyat.
9. It has been contended on their behalf that they are financially weak and presently are 'not in a position to pay the amount of Diyat in lump sum, hence they may be released on bail to enable them to make such payment.##TE# In this regar4 reference has been made to the case of Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 934 (Lahore), and Muhammad Saeed v. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Faisalabad 2000 PCr.LJ 2 (Lahore).
10. Section 331, P.P.C. Provides as under:-- "Payment of Diyat.--- (1) The Diyat may be made payable in lump sum or in instalments spread over a period of three years from the date' Of the final judgment.
(2) Where a convict fails to pay Diyat or any part thereof within the period specified in subsection (1), the convict may be kept in jail and dealt with in the same, manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment until the Diyat is paid full or may be released on bail if he furnishes security equivalent to the amount of Diyat to the satisfaction of the Court.
(3) Where a convict dies before the payment of Diyat or any part thereof, it shall be recovered from his estate."
10. In almost similar situation, the petitioners before their Lordships in the above cited cases were ordered to be released on bail to arrange money for payment of amount of Diyat on their furnishing bail cum surety bonds in the sum equal to the amount of Diyat.
11. Hence, relying on these cases, the petition, is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail Bonds in the sum equal to the amount of Diyat with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and with the undertaking to pay the amount of Diyat within the above prescribed period.##TE#