Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1984, decided on 16th October, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 326 & 324‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Bail sought on ground that although prosecution witnesses have admitted their relationship with complainant and enmity with accused yet trial Court convicted accused holding prosecution witnesses as independent witnesses‑‑Prosecution not opposing bail in view of fact that appeal was likely to be heard after long time and sentence was short‑‑Sentence suspended by High Court without expressing any view on merits.‑‑[Bail].

Sh. Rahman Bakhsh for Appellant.

A.A. Muhammadally, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

This bail application is filed by the present appellant who has been convicted under section 326, P.P.C. and has been awarded sentence of five years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500 or in default to undergo further period of imprisonment for six months and also under section 324, P.P.C. and has been awarded sentence of two years' R.I. The appellant has applied for the suspension of order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri and by submitting application under section 426, Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ocular evidence of two P.Ws. Gul Muhammad and Ramzan by holding that they are not related to the complainant and are independent witnesses and have no enmity with the appellant. The A learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that those two witnesses have admitted not only their relationship with the complainant but have also admitted their enmity with the appellant.

On the other hand the learned A.A.‑G. Mr. A.A. Muhammadally has contended that the appeal is likely to become ripe for regular b hearing after considerable long time and the sentence being only five years. He has further stated that he has no objection if the appellant is enlarged on bail.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. Without expressing any view on the merits of the case I am unable to find any reason for which bail should be refused to the appellant. I am of the view that it is a fit case for the suspension of the execution of sentence. The appellant Waloo alias Wali Muhammad is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.

M. A. K.

Sentence suspended.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.