----S. 426--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A/34/37--Complainant specifically alleged that he has paid the ransom amount to co-accused--But the said accused was declared innocent during investigation--

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 472 (DB)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 426--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A/34/37--Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997), S. 7--Suspension of sentence--Complainant specifically alleged that he has paid the ransom amount to co-accused--But the said accused was declared innocent during investigation--Complainant as well as alleged abductee appeared before the trial Court and exonerated the said co-accused from the commission of charge and ultimately he was acquitted--The role of the petitioner is on lesser footing as compared to his aforesaid acquitted co-accused--His responsibility to the extent of sharing common intention with the principal accused--He is behind the bars for a continuous period of more than 4 ½ years. There is no prospect of early hearing of petitioner’s appeal in near future--Petition is allowed.                            [P. 474] A, B & C

Ms. Shughfta Khaliq, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Rehman Ahmad Khan Sidozai, Advocate for Complainant.

Mr. Sheharyar Mehboob, A.A.G. for State.

Date of hearing 12.1.2022.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 472 (DB)
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Asjad Javaid Ghural and Muhammad Waheed Khan, JJ.
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 5702 of 2020, decided on 12.1.2022.

Order

Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner Muhammad Zaman has sought the suspension of his sentence awarded by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, D.G. Khan vide judgment dated 20.02 2019 in case FIR No. 137/17 dated 23.04.2017, in respect of offences under Sections 365-A, 37 & 34, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station, Kot Chutta, District D.G. Khan whereby he was convicted, and sentenced as under:

Under Sections 365-A read with Section 34/37, PPC

Imprisonment for life with confiscation of his moveable and immoveable property to the tune rupees three lac.

Under Section 7(e) of ATA, 1997

Imprisonment of life.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was given benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks suspension of sentence on the ground that the co-accused namely Aman Ullah, to whom a specific allegation of receiving ransom amount and handing over the abductee to the complainant was attributed, was subsequently exonerated by the complainant and the abductee, as such he has been acquitted of the charge u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., therefore, the case of the petitioner needs reappraisal of the evidence at the time of final arguments in appeal.

3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition on the ground that the acquitted co-accused was declared innocent during investigation and nothing could be recovered from his possession, therefore, his case is distinguishable to that of the present petitioner; that the petitioner has been found guilty by the learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence in its true perspective and, thus, the presumption of his innocence stands evaporated.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record.

5. It has straightaway been observed that in the crime report, complainant specifically alleged that he has paid the ransom amount to co-accused Aman Ullah, who subsequently handed over the abductee to him but the said accused was declared innocent during investigation and report u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by placing his name in Column No. 2 of the said report. In the said challan, complainant as well as alleged abductee appeared before the learned Trial Court and exonerated the said co-accused from the commission of charge and ultimately he was acquitted by the learned trial Court u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 21.01.2020. The role of the petitioner is on lessor footing as compared to his aforesaid acquitted co-’ accused and, thus, his responsibility to the extent of sharing common intention with the principal accused, needs reappraisal of the evidence at the time of arguments in the main appeal. The petitioner was arrested in this case in the month of May, 2017, the judgment impugned was passed on 20.02.2019 and he is behind the bars for a continuous period of more than 4½ years. There is no prospect of early hearing of petitioner’s appeal in near future. Nothing is available on record to show that he has earlier been proved to be a desperate or hardened criminal. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of his sentence.

6. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court till the final disposal of this appeal. He is directed to appear on every date of hearing till the final disposal of the main appeal.

(K.Q.B.)          Petition allowed