Summary: Bail granted----Background: The case involves a revision application filed by the applicants all by caste Pahore. They were booked under Crime No. 34/2022 registered at P.S Sindhri for offenses punishable under sections 365-B, 34 PPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the Sindh Child Marriage Restrained Act, 2013. After a full trial, they were convicted by the Civil Judge and J.M-III, Mirpurkhas, and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 each. The applicants then filed a Criminal Appeal No. 03/2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, which was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas. Their application under section 426 Cr.P.C for bail during the pendency of the appeal was declined, leading to the instant revision application. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants should be granted bail during the pendency of their appeal. 2- Whether the impugned order dated 11-06-2024, which declined their application under section 426 Cr.P.C, should be set aside. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court considered that the sentence awarded to the applicants is of short duration (2 years), and the appeal filed by the applicants is still pending adjudication before the appellate court. Given the quantum of the sentence and the nature of the offenses, the court found merit in the revision application. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order dated 11-06-2024 was set aside, and the applicants were admitted to bail during the pendency of the appeal. They were to be released on bail subject to furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the appellate court. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 365-B, 34 PPC Sections 3 and 4 of the Sindh Child Marriage Restrained Act, 2013 Criminal Appeal No. 03/2024 Section 426 Cr.P.C

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C):----S. 426(1-A), S. 382-BSuspension of sentence—Statutory right—Delay in hearing of appeal—Scope—Convict sentenced to life imprisonment filed petition for suspension of sentence under S. 426 Cr.P.C. on statutory grounds—Held, that under S. 426(1-A)(c) Cr.P.C., appeals of convicts undergoing life imprisonment must be decided within two years of conviction—In the present case, despite the conviction on 29.03.2022, the appeal had not been taken up for hearing—Since the delay in deciding the appeal was not attributable to the petitioner, the statutory right for suspension of sentence was deemed to have accrued—Court observed that the petitioner did not fall within the exceptions of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal—Reliance placed on Sultan Mehmood v. Kaleem Ullah and others 2007 SCMR 91 and Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1555—Sentence suspended, and bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000,000/-.(b) Principles of Bail in Suspension of Sentence Cases:----Bail principles applicable to suspension of sentence petitions—Judicial precedents—Right to fair trialPetitioner contended that co-accused had already been granted suspension of sentence—Held, that principles governing bail under S. 497 Cr.P.C. were applicable to S. 426 Cr.P.C. as well, as affirmed by the Supreme Court—In light of previous rulings, benefit of doubt, if any, can also be extended at the stage of suspension of sentence—Court referred to Mazhar alias Mazharee v. The State 1997 MLD 2881 and Iftikhar Ahmed v. The State and others 2014 SCMR 7—Petitioner was neither a previous convict nor involved in terrorism-related offences, further supporting his entitlement to relief—Court, while ensuring the right to fair trial, granted bail and directed the petitioner to appear before the Court until the final decision of the main appeal.(c) Case Law References:• Sultan Mehmood v. Kaleem Ullah and others 2007 SCMR 91• Mazhar alias Mazharee v. The State 1997 MLD 2881• Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1555• Iftikhar Ahmed v. The State and others 2014 SCMR 7

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 426----Suspension of sentence----Bail pending appeal----Petitioner convicted under Ss. 324, 337-D, P.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years R.I. with fine and Arsh----Petitioner had already served 8 years, 2 months, and 6 days, with only 1 year, 9 months, and 24 days remaining----Inordinate delay in deciding the appeal, with no fault of the petitioner----Suspension of sentence warranted to prevent serving the entire sentence before the appeal’s final decision. Cited Cases: Makhdoom Javed Hashmi v. The State 2008 SCMR 165 Adnan A. Khawaja v. The State 2008 SCMR 1439 Anwar-ul-Haq v. National Accountability Bureau PLD 2009 SC 388 (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 324, 337-D----Attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd----Infliction of injury----Petitioner not assigned any injury to the deceased but was attributed a churri blow to the abdomen of the injured witness (PW-2)----No direct role in the murder established, making his case distinguishable from co-accused. (c) Administration of justice ----Delay in appeal hearing----Fundamental right to fair trial----Petitioner entitled to bail where the delay in hearing the appeal is not attributable to him----Detaining a convict beyond a reasonable period when appeal is pending constitutes pre-conviction punishment. Disposition: Bail granted. Sentence suspended. Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with two sureties, subject to appearance at all future hearings.

Summary: Background: A case was registered against multiple individuals on 23.09.2003 for offenses under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, and 337 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) at Police Station, Kotli. One of the accused was later charged with the murder of an individual and additional offenses under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149, APC. During the trial, the District Court had differing opinions; one member acquitted the accused while another member sentenced the accused to death under section 302(b), APC, and five years' imprisonment under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Act, 1965. On appeal, the High Court modified the sentence, convicting the accused under section 302(c), APC to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and three years' simple imprisonment under section 13 of the Arms Act, 1965, along with compensation to the deceased's legal heirs. ----Issues: The main issue is whether the sentence awarded to the accused should be suspended under section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) pending the decision of the appeals. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court decided not to rule on the suspension application and instead ordered that the main appeals be decided on their merits immediately after the summer vacations. The Court emphasized the importance of a thorough review of the record and found that the arguments presented by the applicant pertained to the merits of the case rather than the delay in the appeal decision. Consequently, the Court directed the completion of the main appeals within three weeks and scheduled the final arguments for 4th October 2022. ----Citations/Precedents: Zia Akbar vs. State & others [PLJ 2012 SC(AJ&K) 32] Muhammad Arshad vs. The State & another [2022 SCMR 1555] Muhammad Juman vs. The State & others [2018 SCMR 318] Naseeb Khan vs. Hakim Ali & others [2006 SCMR 1532] Makhdoom Javed Hashmi vs. The State [2007 SCMR 246] Abdul Khaliq vs. Jehangir & others [PLJ 1999 SC(AJ&K) 219] Ahmad Din & others vs. Muhammad Tazeem & another [2002 SCR 195] Ch. Muhammad Riasat & others vs. Muhammad Asghar & others [2010 SCR 1] Allah Warrayo alias Jabbal vs. The State [2010 YLR 1178] Muhammad Juman vs. The State & others [2018 SCMR 318] Soba Khan vs. The State & another [2016 SCMR 1325]

Summary: Background: This case involves a criminal appeal filed under Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the suspension of sentences awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners were convicted of causing hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay daman (compensation). One petitioner was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) under Section 337F(vi) of the PPC with a daman of Rs. 50,000, while the other was sentenced to two years R.I. under Section 337A(i) with a daman of Rs. 25,000 on two counts. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. -----Issues: 1- Whether the sentences awarded to the petitioners should be suspended under Section 426 Cr.P.C. ----2- Whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by sentencing the petitioners to imprisonment in addition to daman under Section 337F(vi) of the PPC, considering Section 337-N(2) of the PPC. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: For Petitioner 1 (convicted under Section 337F(vi) of PPC): The court held that Section 337-N(2) of the PPC applies only to cases where arsh (compensation for specific injuries) is awarded and does not cover cases involving daman. Since the punishment under Section 337F(vi) involves daman and imprisonment, the trial court was within its discretion to award both. The petitioner was found guilty based on the evidence, and there was no apparent legal error. Thus, the petition for suspension of the sentence was dismissed. For Petitioner 2 (convicted under Section 337A(i) of PPC): The court found that the sentence awarded to this petitioner was short, and there was a high likelihood that the petitioner would serve the full sentence before the appeal could be decided. In line with the principle of the safe administration of justice, the court granted bail and suspended the sentence, allowing the petitioner to be released pending the decision of the appeal. -----Citations/Precedents: Makhdoom Javed Hashmi Vs. The State (2007 SCMR 246) – Presumption of innocence vanishes after conviction by a competent court. Abdul Wahab and others v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 516) – Distinguished based on the specific provision of the PPC involved. Shah Wali vs. Ghulam Din alias Gama and another (PLD 1966 SC 983) – Interpretation of discretionary powers under Section 148 CPC. Muhammad Ismail vs. Muhammad Akbar Bhatti and others (PLD 1997 Lahore 177) – Declaration of the court becoming functus officio after specified conditions in a decree. Mst. Naseema Salahuddin and 2 others vs. Mst. Daulat Fatima and 4 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 103) – The court’s authority in extending or modifying decrees in specific performance cases. Tasneem Ismail and others vs. Messers Wafi Associates and others (2007 SCMR 1464) – Clarified court’s discretion post-decree in cases of specific performance under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act.

Summary: Bail granted --- Background:In Cr.Misc. No. 24/2020, the petitioners Gul Murad, Jan Khan, and Saleh Aman sought suspension of their sentence and release on bail under Section 426 Cr.P.C. They were convicted of murder under Section 302/34 P.P.C. by the Sessions Judge Ghizer and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on 28-09-2017. The petitioners appealed against the conviction on 04-10-2017, which has yet to be decided.----Issues:Whether the petitioners are entitled to suspension of their sentence and release on bail under Section 426 Cr.P.C.Whether the delay in the disposal of the petitioners' criminal appeal justifies granting bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted the petitioners' request for suspension of their sentence and release on bail. The key points of the judgment are:Delay in Appeal Disposal: The criminal appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 11-10-2017, and more than two years and four months had passed without a decision. The petitioners had not sought any adjournments, indicating the delay was not their fault.Admissibility of Appeal: The petitioners? appeal was admitted for regular hearing, and they were not responsible for the delay. The main criminal appeal was scheduled for 10-03-2020, but due to the court's limited functioning capacity, it was unlikely to be decided soon.Entitlement to Bail: The court acknowledged that under normal circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to bail due to the prolonged delay and absence of any indication that they were hardened or dangerous criminals.----Legal Provisions: The petitioners were entitled to suspension of their sentence and release on bail under Section 426 Cr.P.C. due to the undue delay in the disposal of their appeal.

Summary: Background:The case revolves around three civil petitions (C.P.3752/2018, C.P.3753/2018, and C.P.3754/2018) filed by Chairman NAB against Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz Sharif, and Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Safdar respectively. These petitions challenged the judgment dated 19.9.2018 of the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in WPs Nos.2839 of 2018, 2841 of 2018, and 2842 of 2018. The central issue pertains to the grant of bail pending appeal, particularly in cases where there is a statutory ouster of court jurisdiction.---Issues:Whether the constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail can be invoked in cases with a statutory ouster of court jurisdiction for bail pending appeal.The interpretation and applicability of previous judgments in similar contexts.The scope and differentiation between bail under constitutional jurisdiction and general law.Parameters for the assessment of evidence in bail matters, particularly in NAB cases.Compliance with guidelines regarding suspension of sentence under Section 426 Cr.P.C. in NAB cases.Application of bail principles under Sections 497 and 498 Cr.P.C. in suspension of sentence cases.The effect of ambiguously worded judgments on suspension of sentence.Applicability of principles governing bail cancellation to withdrawal of suspension of sentence.Correct interpretation of Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.Consideration of hardship grounds in suspension of sentence in NAB cases.The permissibility of discussing case merits and giving conclusive findings in bail suspension matters.Admissibility of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. in constitutional petitions.Jurisdictional issues concerning the timing of filing constitutional petitions in relation to main appeals.Permissibility of detailed orders in suspension of sentence matters.Adherence to established guidelines from previous judgments.Proper interpretation of relevant provisions regarding burden of proof and presumption.Distinction of previous judgments from the present case facts.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the mentioned points and directed the matter to be placed before a larger bench. It scheduled the re-listing of the matter for 12.12.2018.---Citations/Precedents:Haji Ghulam Ali Vs. The State through A.G., N.W.F.P., Peshawar (2003 SCMR 597)Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi Vs. The State through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad (PLD 2003 SC 668)Olas Khan and others Vs. Chairman NAB through Chairman and others (PLD 2018 SC 40)Peer Mukaram-ul-Haq Vs. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and others (2006 SCMR 1225)---Quote:Leave is granted to examine a number of questions including whether in a case where there is a statutory ouster of jurisdiction of courts to grant bail pending appeal, the constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail can be invoked on the same principles or grounds as are available under the general law.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The case arises from the conviction of two individuals, for their involvement in a criminal offense. They were sentenced by the Additional District Criminal Court, Muzaffarabad, to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under sections 302(c)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). They were also convicted under other sections of the PPC and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. However, the trial court dismissed some charges and extended the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., ensuring the sentences would run concurrently. Both the prosecution and the convicts filed appeals in the Shariat Court— the former seeking enhancement of the sentence and the latter seeking acquittal. However, the appeals remained pending since 2013, prompting the convicts to file applications for bail on the grounds of statutory delay. The Shariat Court accepted the applications, suspending their sentences and releasing them on bail. The complainant, Mst. Hakim Jan, challenged this order through a criminal revision petition before the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the Shariat Court justified in suspending the sentences and granting bail based on the delay in deciding the appeals? -----2- Was the appeal filed by the convicts before the Shariat Court time-barred? -----3- Did the Shariat Court fail to properly consider the seriousness of the offense and the prosecution’s evidence? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: --Suspension of Sentence and Statutory Delay The Supreme Court held that Section 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C. provides a convicted person the right to seek bail if their appeal is not decided within two years, except when the delay is caused by the appellant's negligence. In this case, the appeals had been pending since 2013, and the convicts had served a significant portion of their sentences. The record indicated that the delay was not attributable to the convicts but rather to court proceedings. --Application of Discretion by the Shariat Court The Court emphasized that statutory bail under Section 426, Cr.P.C. is not absolute. If the convict is a hardened or dangerous criminal, the court may refuse bail. However, the convicts in this case were not classified as dangerous or desperate criminals. Therefore, the Shariat Court acted within its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail. --Timeliness of the Appeal The complainant argued that the appeal filed by the convicts before the Shariat Court was time-barred. However, the Court held that the appeal was filed under Section 25 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, which allows 60 days for filing an appeal. As the special law takes precedence over general limitation rules, the appeal was found to be within time. --Assessment of Prosecution’s Evidence and Public Policy Concerns The complainant argued that the Shariat Court did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offense and the evidence against the convicts. However, the Supreme Court clarified that bail during the pendency of appeals based on statutory delay is not a reflection of the merits of the case. It simply ensures that the right to a timely hearing is protected. The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, holding that the Shariat Court committed no illegality in suspending the sentences and releasing the convicts on bail. -----Citations / Precedents: Habib-ur-Rehman Chaughtaie vs. Habib-ur-Rehman & another [2013 PSC (Cri.) 725]

Summary: Bail granted---The petitioner, Soba Khan, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his petition for bail by suspending his sentence pending the disposal of his appeal against conviction and life imprisonment. The petitioner and five co-accused were charged with effectively firing at the deceased, causing his death. The petitioner argued that the High Court's judgment had thwarted the grant of bail in post-conviction cases, contrary to the provisions of S.426 Cr.P.C. The court analyzed the evidence, including the postmortem report and pictorial evidence, which contradicted the ocular account of the incident. It noted discrepancies in the charges against the accused and the acquittal of some co-accused based on similar evidence. The court highlighted the provision of S.426 Cr.P.C., which allows for the suspension of sentence pending appeals, emphasizing the need for caution in denying bail to convicts at the post-conviction stage. The court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the appellant, suspending his sentence of life imprisonment on the condition of providing sureties.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 439, 423, 426, 427 & 428---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---High Court within themandate of S. 439, Cr.P.C., had power to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or proprietyof any findings, sentence or order, recorded or passed by the criminal courts---While exercisingthe powers under S. 439, Cr.P.C. powers available to an Appellate Court under Ss.423, 426, 427& 428, Cr.P.C. would also become available---Accused persons were to point out the errors andthe illegalities on part of the Trial/Appellate Courts and irregularities of a nature, which couldvitiate the trial or the final order.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 337-A(i) & 337F(v)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439-A---Causing Shajjahi-Khafifah, hashimah---Appreciation of evidence---Petition for enhancement of sentence---Scope---Trial as well as Appellate Court, in their judgments remained contended on theexplanation submitted by the Investigating Officer, with regard to delay in filing of the FIR---Reason assigned by the Investigating Officer in that regard, having remained unrebutted, wasrightly relied by the courts below---None of the witnesses suggested the facts, nor anything wasplaced on record to establish mala fide on the part of the witnesses---Mere relationship of thewitnesses with the complainant, was not a legal ground to discard their evidence, until, malafides were established to discard their evidence, which could result in false implication ofaccused persons---Existence of relationship, was of no legal effect, nor fatal to the case of theprosecution---No material discrepancies, were pointed out in the statements of the witnesses,which could diminish the credibility of their testimony---Both the Trial and Appellate Courtbelow, not only discussed the evidence produced in the defence by accused persons, and gave itdue consideration, but did not find the defence plea as confidence inspiring---No instance ofmisappreciation, or non-appreciation of the material on the record, were pointed out, whichskipped the notice of the courts below---Finding recorded by the courts below, about guilt ofaccused persons, did not suffer from any legal infirmity and did not require reappraisal ofevidence---In presence of ample evidence, mere fact that on the basis of minor variations in thestatements, a different inference, could be drawn from the material, than the one drawn by thecourts below was no ground for making any interference in the findings of courts below inexercise of revisional jurisdiction---Accused, were rightly convicted and sentenced by courtsbelow---Complainant, despite having knowledge, opted not to question the quantum of sentencebefore the Appellate Court below, which was fully equipped with the power within the mandateof S. 439-A, Cr.P.C.---Complainant could not file revision petition for enhancement of sentenceof accused persons.Syed Ghulam Murtaza v. Baber Akbar 1991 PCr.LJ 720; Paresh Nath ChakrabortySunamganj Municipal Board v. M.H. Obaidur Raja PLD 1963 Dacca 728; Arshad Ali aliasAchhu v. The State 2002 SCMR 1806; Nazar Ahmed v. Nazar Muhammad 1984 PCr.LJ 867 andMuhammad Afzal v. Ghulam Asghar PLD 2000 SC 12 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 439--- Revisional jurisdiction--- Scope--- Scope of revisional jurisdiction was limited, notto re-open a question of fact unless it suffered from any illegality to make an order perverse orunjust---Where neither substantial question of law was involved, nor misappreciation or nonappreciation of facts and evidence, was established, concurrent findings of the courts below,need not to be interfered with under revisional jurisdiction.