ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Appeal No.S-67    of   2024

Date of Hearing

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

27.09.2024.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of M. A. No.4377/2024(426, Cr.P.C)

Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro, advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.

O R D E R.

Khadim Hussain Soomro, J.-       Through the listed application (M.A. No.4377 of 2024) under Section 426, Cr.P.C, appellant Akbar Ali, son of Arz Muhammad Khoso seeks his release on bail by suspension of the sentence awarded to him vide impugned judgment dated 03.07.2024, passed by the trial Court/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana, in Special Case No.16/2009 re-The State v. Akbar Ali Khoso.

2.                 At the very outset, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had been on bail during the trial, that the appellant is an old age man, that the appellant has been in custody since his arrest and lastly, requests for the release of the appellant on bail. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Anwar-ul-Haq v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 388) and Khan Muhammad Mahar v. The State (2003 SCMR 22).

3.                  Conversely, the learned D.P.G. opposes the application on the grounds that the appellant was awarded a sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1873191/-, that the appellant has caused loss to the national exchequer, that the white-collar crime is rapidly increasing in our society; therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any concession.

4.                  Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned D.P.G. for the State and perused the record.

5.                  Before considering the merits of the instant application, Section 426, Cr. P.C. is reproduced hereunder for convenience's sake:

"426.(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond.

(1-A)  An Appellate Court shall, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing if otherwise directs, order a convicted person to be released on bail who has been sentenced.

(a) to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of six months of his conviction;

(b) to imprisonment for a period exceeding three years but not exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided with a period of one year of his conviction;

(c) to imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding seven years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of two years of his conviction.(For emphasis)

            Provided that the provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of the Appellate Court, is a hardened desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life."

6.                  Clause (c) of sub-section (1-A) to Section 426, Cr. P.C. provides that in case the imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding 07 years has been awarded, and the appeal of the convict has not been decided within 02 years of his conviction, he can be released on bail on the statutory delay. It is worth mentioning here that the appeal at hand was filed on 02.08.2024; even the paper book of the same has not been prepared as yet; therefore, the case of the appellant does not come within the purview of aforesaid clause of sub-section (1-A) of Section 426, Cr.P.C. Moreover, the case law relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant with the utmost respect is distinguished from the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the case of Khan Muhammad Mahar (supra), the petition was converted into appeal and accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the ground that the petitioner in that case had already undergone his sentence of imprisonment and in the case of Anwar-ul-Haq (supra), the Hon'ble apex Court granted application on the ground that the appellant had undergone the major portion of his sentence. Reverting to the instant appeal, the jail roll of the appellant furnished by the jail authorities reveals that the appellant has served only 01 years, 04 months and 07 days of his substantive sentence, with remissions of 01 years 06 months earned by him, whereas the unexpired portion of the sentence, which the appellant has to serve, is 10 years, 10 months and 05 days.

7.                  In view of the above, instant application being misconceived and devoid of merit is dismissed.

                                                                                             JUDGE

Qazi Tahir PA/*