Order
Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH
AT SUKKUR
C. P. No. D – 636 of 2019
Before:
Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Petitioner : Shah Muhammad Bhelar
Through Mr. Haji
Shamsuddin Rajpar, Advocate
Respondents 1 & 2 : The State
Through Mr. Khalil Maitlo, Assistant prosecutor General Sindh
Respondent No.4 : Razziq
Dino
Through Mr. Shabir Ali Bozdar, Advocate
Date of hearing : 23.07.2020.
Date of order : 23.07.2020.
O R D E R
ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. – Through this petition, the
petitioner has prayed for suspending the operation of the judgment dated
31.08.2018, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur,
whereby he convicted the petitioner for
offences punishable under Section 506/2 PPC read with Section 7 of
Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and
to pay fine of Rs.30, 000/-, on both counts both the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
2. It has been
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner\appellant that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record in in his favour and
has convicted the petitioner/appellant for the aforesaid offences; that the
petitioner has served out substantial sentence i.e. one year eleven months and
twenty one days, but the hearing of appeal is not in sight in near future. It
is contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the
allegations leveled against the appellant were of issuing threats of dire
consequences, but he did not overact for committing the offence under section
506/II P.P.C, which factum requires detail reappraisal of evidence by this
court at the time of hearing the main appeal.it is his further case that both
the sentences were ordered to run concurrently i.e. seven years and the
petitioner/appellant has been incarcerated in jail without hearing of appeal. It
is further contended that there is a long
chain of authorities where the superior courts have always jealously guarded
and protected the liberty of citizens in the matter of grant of bail and in all
such cases assistance, aid and guidance has always been taken from the
provision of section 497, read with section 426 Cr.P.C. being considered the
mother provision of law, regulating the grant or refusal of bail/suspending the
sentences of accused/convicted, as the said provisions of law have successfully
undergone the test of time, since inception/incorporation in the Code. He next
argued that the Liberty of a citizen has been elevated to the high pedestal by
the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Constitution of 1973, which inter
alia provides that no citizen shall be deprived of his life and/or liberty,
save in accordance with law, but in the present case, appeal has not been heard
since its admission for regular hearing; that to have a timely hearing of
appeal, is the fundamental right of appellant.
3. This
Court has carefully gone through the statement of the complainant Raziqdino who
deposed that the alleged victim was not subjected to rape by the present
petitioner/appellant, even he did not disclose his name in his deposition; The
prosecution witnesses have only stated in their depositions that the present
appellant only extended threats of dire consequences.
4. We are of
the tentative view that it is yet to be seen as to whether the trial Court
appreciated the deposition of complainant and statement of appellant recorded
under Section 342 Cr.P.C with regard to factum of issuing threats of dire
consequences to the Complainant party. As per prosecution, the present petitioner\appellant
has been convicted for offences under Section 506(II) of P.P.C
read with Section 7 of ATA and has been awarded jail sentence of 7 years of R.I.
on both counts for which this Court has to appreciate the factual as well as
legal aspect of the case, when the matter is proceeded on merit.
5. Learned Counsel for the
Complainant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh recorded their
no objection to the suspension of the petitioners’ sentence under the
circumstances of the case.
6. In view of
the forgoing and without otherwise expressing any opinion on the merits of the
matter, consequently, the captioned petition stands allowed and the
sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is suspended. The petitioner/appellant,
namely Shah Muhammad, son of Muhammad Adhal, be released on bail, subject to
his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred
Thousand only) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Additional Registrar of this Court.
J U D G
E
J U D G
E