17/06/2026
Draft/Specimen/Format:
Petition for SUSPENSION of Sentence before High Court
**************************
BEFORE HON’BLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Crl. Misc. No._________/2017
IN
Crl. Appeal No. ___/2014
____ SON OF __Resident of ____ District Okara. (Presently confined in Central Jail, Sahiwal).
PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State
RESPONDENT
FIR No. ____
Dated ____
U/S ___ PPC
Police Station Basirpur
District Okara
Date of Judgment ______
Private Complaint U/S ______
_________
PETITION UNDER SECTION 426 CR.P.C. FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT TILL THE FINAL DECISION OF THE APPEAL.
Respectfully Sheweth:
1. That the petitioner along with his co-accused was tried by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur who vide his judgment dated ____ convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:
UNDER SECTION 302 (b) P.P.C
Life imprisonment Under Section 302 (b) PPC and was also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased and failing which further to undergo S.I. for 2 years.
2. That the Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated _____ is pending before this Hon’ble Court which has not been fixed for hearing so far.
3. That the contents of the appeal may kindly be read as integral part of the present petition.
4. That the petitioner seeks suspension of his sentence, inter alia, on the following:
GROUNDS
a. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying Criminal Appeal against his conviction and there is no likelihood of its decision in the near future.
b. That the petitioner was arrested on ____ and he is behind the bars since his arrest.
c. That there is every likelihood of the acceptance of the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction.
d. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence brought on record, it is a case of acquittal but due to non reading and mis-reading of evidence, the learned trial Court has fallen in error while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him and convicting him.
e. That the learned trial Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the light of law laid down by the Superior Courts and believed the prosecution evidence in utter disregard of the principles of appreciation of evidence.
f. That the prosecution has badly failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
g. That the case against the petitioner is false fabricated and is a result of concoction and deliberation. Barkat Ali, PW-1 made a statement (Exh.PA) before the police officer at the time when he was on his patrol duty. On the basis of the statement (Exh.PA) the formal FIR (Exh.PA/1) was recorded at the police station. The perusal of these two documents is sufficiently indicative of the fact that according to the FIR Allaf Yar, the petitioner had caused a firearm injury hitting Shahadat Ali, deceased, on the back side of his left shoulder but during the course of the trial, the witnesses deposed that the injury was caused to the deceased by Muhammad Saeed alias Rashid alias Sheeda.
h. That the attribution to the petitioner is only that he had made a fire which hit the Dala/Vehicle meaning thereby the present petitioner had caused no injury to the deceased nor to any other witness.
i. That if the case of the prosecution is seen in its correct perspective, it makes abundantly clear that only one fire was made hitting the deceased from the distance of 8-10 feet but astonishingly, no pellet had hit Barkat Ali, PW-1 who was sitting on the front seat of the said vehicle along with the deceased.
j. That allegedly fire was made through the 12 bore gun, the pellet starts scattering after about two feet and they spread almost in the area of 3-4 feet thereafter. If it is seen in this perspective the whole story prepared by the prosecution falsifies itself and falls to the ground because no pellet at all had hit neither Barkat Ali, PW-1 nor to the driver who had not been produced.
k. That the prosecution has dishonestly withheld the independent witnesses who were statedly sitting in the vehicle and a woman who had reportedly received a pellet injury.
l. That the recovery of criminal weapon is of no avail to the prosecution because no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence.
m. That the motive, as alleged by the prosecution, has also not been proved as no witness was produced by the prosecution in order to prove the factum of motive.
n. That there is no likelihood of the fixation of the main appeal for hearing in the near future. The evidence of the prosecution is such which is not believable nor it connects the petitioner in any manner with the alleged offence at all.
o. That if the petition is not allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is not suspended whole object of filing of appeal will be defeated.
p. That the petitioner humbly seeks permission to raise additional grounds at the time of arguments.
PRAYER
In the above circumstances and for the reasons given above, it is most respectfully prayed that the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner may kindly be suspended and the petitioner be released on bail till the final disposal of his Appeal.
PETITIONER
Through
Zeeshan Ahmad Malik
Advocate High Court
The Legal Mentors - TLM
66/3, Hajvery Complex
2-Mozang Road, Lahore
CERTIFICATE.
As per instructions of the client this is the 1st Petition on the subject before this Hon’ble Court.
ADVOCATE
