Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1984, decided on 2nd February, 1984.

---S.426(1-A) (b)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.466--Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5 (2) Bail/suspension of sentence Offence of forgery--Court, held, competent to admit convict to bail for a cogent reason like illness, old age etc.--Accused charged for offence of forgery failing to make out any cogent reason for suspension of sentence Bail refused.

Raisuddin v. The State 1971 S C M R 1 ; Muhammad Aslam and another v. State 1971 S C M R 511; Bahar Khan v. The State 1969 SCMR 81; Maqsood v. Ali Muhammad and another 1971 S C M R 657; Hata and others v. The State P L D 1967 Lah. 1302 and Parvaiz Akhtar v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 184 ref.

Samiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1984.

This is bail application filed by the present appellant, who has been convicted under section 466, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and has been awarded sentence of five years' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for one year for committing forgery in the Revenue record in respect of agricultural land.

2. The above bail application was opposed by the learned A.A.-G. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi on the ground that as the sentence is more than three years, the case falls under section 426(1-A)(b), Cr.P.C. On the other hand Mr. Samiullah Qureshi learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since the appellant was tried under section 466, P.P.C which provides maximum sentence of 7 years, the case does not fail within the prohibition provided in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to bail.

3. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi has relied upon the case-of Raisuddin v. The State 1971 S C M R 1 and the case of Muhammad Aslam and another v. State 1971 S C M R 511. On the other hand Mr. Samiullah Qureshi has relied upon the (1) case of Bahar Khan v. The State 1969 S C M R 81, (2) the case of Maqsood v. Ali Muhammad ana another 1971 S C M R 657, (3) the case of Hata and others v. The State P L D 1967 Lah. 1302 and (4) the case of Parvaiz Akhtar v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 184.

4. In the first case relied upon by the learned A.A.G a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to decline petition for leave which was filed by a petitioner who was convicted alongwith 7 others under section 304, Part II read with section 34, P.P.C. and was sentenced to R.I. for f