| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3580 = 2026 MLD 938 |
Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 174 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2025, decided on 2nd June, 2025.
Presented By: Ali Baig, C.J
Muzahir Ali for Appellant. Zia Ullah L.A for
Respondents.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 174 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2025, decided on 2nd June, 2025.
Presented By: Ali Baig, C.J
Muzahir Ali for Appellant. Zia Ullah L.A for
Respondents.
MAISUM ABBAS---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE through Divisional Forest Magistrate Gilgit and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 426, 497, 498, 561-A
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 426, 497 & 561-A---Application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---Conditions of bail---Principles to be observed in grant of bail as well as in cases of suspension of sentence pending appeal---Short sentence---Scope---Likelihood that the appeal could not be decided within near future---Scope---Where appellant/petitioner has served the major portion of sentence; sentence shall not be suspended where role of the petitioner/appellant cannot be extracted without deeper appreciation of evidence---Powers of the appellate Court in granting bail at post conviction shall be guided by the criteria/process provided in S.497, Cr.P.C---Sentence should be suspended in appropriate course through tentative assessment of the evidence on record, if case of the convicted person is found fit for grant of bail; sentence can be suspended if on re-consideration of evidence the Court of appeal is of the view that conviction/sentence is not liable to be maintained by slightly touching the merits of the case without recording conclusion findings. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss.561-A, 426 & 498---Gilgit Baltistan Forest Act (III of 2019), Ss. 41(b), (f), (n), 120 & 121---Cutting down trees---Suspension of sentence---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused-petitioner without obtaining prior permission of competent authorities had cut down 02 live trees which was recovered from the accused---Case was submitted before the Forest Magistrate for legal proceedings---Forest Magistrate framed the charge against the accused-petitioner, wherein he had confessed his guilt and Forest Magistrate had convicted and sentenced him---Petitioner filed an appeal, but same was dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner had been convicted and sentenced for 06-months imprisonment, which was a short sentence---Sentence awarded to the appellant/petitioner was short and lawyers of the region were on strike for the last 06 months and they were not appearing in regular appeals/revisions etc, except urgent matters---Before the criminal appeal of the appellant/petitioner was fixed for final arguments, it was quite possible that the…