Overview

The doctrine of suspension of sentence is one of the most significant safeguards within Pakistan’s criminal justice system. Although a conviction remains legally effective after judgment, the law recognizes that an appeal may ultimately overturn that conviction. To preserve the appellant’s rights during appellate proceedings, courts are empowered to suspend the execution of a sentence in appropriate cases.

This legal principle has recently gained nationwide attention due to proceedings involving former Prime Minister Imran Khan in the Toshakhana, Toshakhana-II, and £190 Million (Al-Qadir Trust) accountability cases.

These proceedings have revived public discussion on several important legal questions, including:

• Judicial discretion in criminal appeals.
• Suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Interaction between the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) and the CrPC.
• Constitutional jurisdiction of appellate courts.
• The future development of accountability jurisprudence in Pakistan.

This article explains the governing legal principles, relevant statutory provisions, recent judicial developments, and practical implications for advocates, law students, researchers, and the general public.

Can a Convicted Person Be Released While an Appeal Is Pending?

Yes.

Pakistani law authorizes an appellate court to suspend the execution of a criminal sentence while an appeal remains pending. However, this relief is never automatic.

The appellate court exercises judicial discretion after carefully examining:

• The merits of the appeal.
• The legality of the conviction.
• The surrounding circumstances.
• The interests of justice.

Where sufficient legal grounds exist, the court may suspend execution of the sentence and release the convicted person on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

Why These Cases Matter

The recent accountability proceedings involving Imran Khan extend well beyond the fate of an individual political leader. They raise broader constitutional and criminal law questions affecting Pakistan’s entire justice system.

Among the most important issues are:

• How appellate courts exercise judicial discretion.
• The balance between individual liberty and public accountability.
• The relationship between the National Accountability Ordinance and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Constitutional appellate jurisdiction.
• The continuing evolution of accountability law.

For legal practitioners, these proceedings provide valuable guidance regarding applications seeking suspension of sentence after conviction.

Recent Judicial Developments

The Toshakhana Case

On 5 August 2023, an Islamabad trial court convicted former Prime Minister Imran Khan for allegedly concealing information relating to state gifts received during his tenure in office.

The court imposed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

Subsequently, the Islamabad High Court suspended the sentence while hearing the criminal appeal and concluded that interim relief was justified pending final adjudication.

However, despite suspension of the sentence, Imran Khan remained in judicial custody because separate proceedings under the Official Secrets Act (commonly referred to as the Cipher Case) continued against him.

This illustrates an important legal principle:

Suspension of one sentence does not automatically result in release where the accused remains lawfully detained in another criminal case.

The £190 Million (Al-Qadir Trust) Reference

Another major accountability matter concerns the £190 Million Reference, commonly known as the Al-Qadir Trust Case.

In January 2025, an Accountability Court convicted former Prime Minister Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi after finding them guilty under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO). The prosecution alleged that land and financial benefits were obtained in exchange for facilitating the settlement of approximately £190 million repatriated to Pakistan by the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency.

Following the conviction, both appellants challenged the judgment before the Islamabad High Court and simultaneously filed applications seeking suspension of their sentences.

On 4 May 2026, the Islamabad High Court dismissed those applications, observing that the principal criminal appeals had already been fixed for hearing. The Court held that separate applications for suspension had therefore become infructuous, preferring to hear the appeals on their merits instead of deciding interim applications independently.

This ruling has become an important procedural precedent in accountability litigation and demonstrates the judiciary’s increasing preference for expeditious disposal of appeals over prolonged interim proceedings.

Toshakhana-II Appeals

Another significant development arose from the Toshakhana-II convictions.

In December 2025, an Accountability Court sentenced Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi to ten years’ imprisonment.

When appeals were filed before the Islamabad High Court, technical objections were raised by the court office regarding maintainability.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro rejected those objections, observing that the right of appeal is a continuation of the original criminal proceedings and should ordinarily not be defeated on technical or procedural grounds.

This observation reinforces the long-established judicial approach that criminal appeals should ordinarily be decided on their merits rather than dismissed because of technical irregularities.

Why These Decisions Are Legally Significant

These recent proceedings illustrate several important principles governing Pakistani criminal law:

• Suspension of sentence is a discretionary judicial remedy.
• Filing an appeal does not automatically suspend a conviction or sentence.
• Accountability cases involve special procedural rules under the National Accountability Ordinance.
• Constitutional questions relating to appellate jurisdiction continue to evolve.
• Courts increasingly favour speedy disposal of criminal appeals instead of prolonged interim litigation.

Collectively, these developments demonstrate how appellate courts balance individual liberty with the public interest in accountability and effective administration of justice.

Legal Framework Governing Suspension of Sentence in Pakistan

What Is Suspension of Sentence?

Suspension of sentence is a statutory remedy available after conviction. It permits an appellate court to temporarily halt execution of a criminal sentence while the appeal remains pending.

Importantly, suspension of sentence does not erase or invalidate the conviction itself. The conviction continues to remain effective unless and until it is overturned by the appellate court.

The suspension merely postpones execution of the punishment pending final determination of the appeal.

Statutory Basis

The principal statutory provision governing suspension of sentence in Pakistan is Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC).

The section empowers an appellate court to:

• Suspend execution of the sentence.
• Release the convicted person on bail where appropriate.
• Impose suitable conditions during the pendency of the appeal.

The legislature intentionally granted broad discretionary powers because every criminal case presents unique facts and circumstances.

Consequently, no convicted person possesses an automatic legal right to suspension merely because an appeal has been filed.

Suspension of Sentence Is Not the Same as Bail

A common misconception is that suspension of sentence and bail are identical remedies. In reality, they apply at different stages of criminal proceedings and are governed by different legal principles.

Judicial Discretion Is the Foundation

Pakistani courts have consistently held that suspension of sentence is a matter of judicial discretion rather than legal entitlement.

While exercising that discretion, appellate courts ordinarily examine the following factors:

• Whether the appeal raises arguable questions of law or fact.
• Whether substantial legal errors appear in the judgment.
• Whether continued imprisonment would cause irreparable injustice.
• The possibility of absconding.
• The likelihood of interference with evidence or witnesses.
• The seriousness of the offence.
• Public interest considerations.
• The anticipated time required for disposal of the appeal.

No single factor is decisive. Every application is determined according to its own facts and circumstances.

Special Considerations in Accountability Cases

Cases arising under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) involve additional procedural complexity.

Unlike ordinary criminal prosecutions, accountability matters are governed by a special statute that contains its own procedural framework.

Section 3 of the National Accountability Ordinance provides that where any inconsistency exists between the Ordinance and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of the NAO prevail.

Accordingly, advocates appearing in accountability proceedings must carefully examine both statutes before filing applications seeking suspension of sentence.

Appellate Structure Under the National Accountability Ordinance

Accountability Court
        │
        ▼
High Court (Section 32 NAO)
        │
        ▼
Further Constitutional or Appellate Proceedings
(Federal Constitutional Court / Supreme Court,
subject to applicable law)

The interaction between these appellate forums has become one of the most debated procedural issues in Pakistan’s constitutional and accountability jurisprudence.

Important Judicial Principles Governing Suspension of Sentence

Over the years, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has developed well-established principles governing applications for suspension of sentence. These principles guide appellate courts while exercising their discretionary powers.

1. Suspension of Sentence Is an Exceptional Judicial Relief

Merely filing an appeal does not entitle a convicted person to suspension of sentence. The appellant must establish sufficient legal grounds demonstrating why interim relief is justified.

2. The Appeal Must Raise Arguable Questions

Courts generally examine whether the appeal raises genuine questions of law or fact capable of affecting the conviction. Appeals lacking substantial legal issues ordinarily do not qualify for interim relief.

3. Serious Procedural Errors Strengthen the Case

Where the trial appears to suffer from significant legal irregularities, denial of fair trial rights, improper appreciation of evidence, or substantial misapplication of law, appellate courts are more likely to consider suspension of sentence.

4. Delay in Disposal of Appeals

Where criminal appeals are unlikely to be heard for an extended period, prolonged incarceration becomes an important consideration. Pakistani courts have repeatedly recognized that meaningful appellate review should not be rendered ineffective by excessive delay.

5. Medical and Humanitarian Grounds

Advanced age, severe illness, permanent disability, or other exceptional humanitarian circumstances may also influence judicial discretion. However, such claims must be supported by credible medical evidence rather than mere assertions.

Leading Supreme Court Precedents

Pakistani jurisprudence concerning suspension of sentence has evolved through numerous landmark decisions, including:

• 2008 SCMR 660
• 1998 SCMR 423
• 1995 SCMR 1819
• 1991 SCMR 1459
• 1986 SCMR 1970

Collectively, these authorities emphasize that courts must balance:

• Protection of individual liberty.
• Respect for judicial findings of guilt.
• Public confidence in the justice system.
• The constitutional right to effective appellate remedies.

Jurisdictional Challenges in Accountability Appeals

One of the most significant recent developments in Pakistan’s accountability jurisprudence concerns the question of appellate jurisdiction.

Historically, criminal appeals arising from accountability cases were heard by the High Courts, with further appellate remedies available before the Supreme Court where permitted by law.

However, legislative developments introducing the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) have generated new constitutional questions regarding the proper appellate forum.

Lawyers must now carefully determine whether a challenge should be presented before:

• The High Court.
• The Supreme Court of Pakistan.
• The Federal Constitutional Court.
• Another forum specifically created by statute.

Selecting the incorrect forum may result in procedural objections, delay, and complications affecting interim relief.

The Registrar’s Objections

A notable procedural controversy emerged when an appeal challenging refusal of suspension of sentence in the £190 Million (Al-Qadir Trust) Case was presented before the Supreme Court.

Instead of fixing the matter before a bench, the Registrar’s Office returned the appeal after raising objections regarding maintainability, taking the preliminary view that jurisdiction might instead lie before the Federal Constitutional Court.

Although such objections do not determine the legal issue conclusively, they require counsel to address jurisdiction before the matter proceeds for judicial consideration.

Principal Constitutional Arguments

Counsel representing the appellant reportedly advanced several important constitutional arguments, including:

Article 185(3) of the Constitution

It was argued that the Supreme Court retained constitutional appellate jurisdiction because no statutory provision expressly excluded its authority.

Interpretation of Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance

Another submission was that Section 32A governs appeals arising from final judgments under Section 32 of the Ordinance and does not necessarily apply to interlocutory orders such as refusal of suspension of sentence.

Absence of an Alternative Remedy

The defence further argued that where legislation provides no alternative appellate remedy, litigants should not be left without constitutional recourse.

Medical and Humanitarian Considerations

Pakistani courts have consistently recognized that exceptional medical circumstances may justify suspension of sentence in appropriate cases.

Applicants frequently rely upon:

• Serious illness.
• Advanced age.
• Permanent disability.
• Specialized medical treatment unavailable in prison.
• Deteriorating physical condition.
• Exceptional humanitarian hardship.

However, courts ordinarily require reliable medical documentation before granting relief on humanitarian grounds.

Delay in Hearing Appeals

Another important consideration is the expected duration of the appellate proceedings.

If a convicted person is likely to remain imprisoned for several years before the appeal is heard, continued incarceration may undermine the effectiveness of the appeal itself.

This principle reflects the constitutional importance of meaningful appellate review and the maxim that justice delayed should not defeat justice.

The Doctrine of “Infructuous Applications”

An important procedural development emerged from the Islamabad High Court’s decision dated 4 May 2026.

The Court held that where the principal criminal appeals had already been fixed for hearing, separate applications seeking suspension of sentence had effectively become infructuous.

The rationale was straightforward: if the appeal itself is about to be heard, separate adjudication of interim applications may unnecessarily duplicate proceedings.

Although this approach promotes judicial efficiency, future cases may continue refining the circumstances in which interim relief remains appropriate despite an early hearing of the appeal.

The Standard Applied by Appellate Courts

When deciding applications for suspension of sentence, appellate courts do not conduct a complete retrial.

Instead, they undertake a limited examination to determine whether there appears to be:

• A significant legal error.
• An arguable point requiring appellate examination.
• Serious doubt regarding the correctness of the conviction.
• Exceptional circumstances warranting interim relief.

The objective is not to determine innocence but to assess whether continued execution of the sentence would be unjust pending final disposal of the appeal.

Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest

Every application seeking suspension of sentence requires courts to balance competing constitutional values.

On one side lies the individual’s right to liberty and meaningful appellate review. On the other lies society’s interest in enforcing criminal judgments and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

Judicial discretion exists precisely to strike this balance fairly, ensuring that neither individual rights nor public confidence in the legal system is compromised.

Practical Guidance for Lawyers Filing Suspension of Sentence Applications

Applications seeking suspension of sentence should never be drafted as routine pleadings. Since the relief is discretionary, the quality of legal arguments often determines whether an applicant succeeds.

1. Clearly Identify Errors in the Trial Judgment

Rather than making broad allegations that the judgment is “illegal” or “against the evidence,” advocates should identify specific legal defects, such as:

• Misinterpretation of statutory provisions.
• Failure to appreciate material evidence.
• Procedural irregularities affecting a fair trial.
• Improper application of legal principles.
• Violation of constitutional safeguards.

Specific legal arguments carry significantly greater persuasive value than general assertions of innocence.

2. Demonstrate That the Appeal Raises Arguable Questions

The appellate court does not finally decide the appeal at the interim stage. Nevertheless, counsel should demonstrate that the appeal contains substantial questions of law or fact deserving judicial examination.

3. Support Medical Grounds with Evidence

Where medical or humanitarian grounds are relied upon, documentary evidence is essential, including:

• Medical reports.
• Hospital records.
• Specialist opinions.
• Prison medical records.
• Diagnostic investigations.

4. Address Jurisdictional Issues

Given the evolving appellate framework involving the High Courts, the Supreme Court, and the Federal Constitutional Court, advocates should carefully explain why the chosen forum possesses jurisdiction.

5. Request Expeditious Hearing

Where prolonged incarceration would cause substantial prejudice, counsel should seek an early hearing of the appeal. In many situations, prompt disposal of the appeal provides more effective relief than lengthy litigation over interim applications.

Strategic Lessons from Recent Accountability Cases

• File the criminal appeal without unnecessary delay.
• Submit any application for suspension of sentence alongside the appeal whenever possible.
• Anticipate procedural objections relating to jurisdiction, limitation, maintainability, and registry requirements.
• Base arguments on statutory interpretation and judicial precedent rather than political narratives.
• Support every factual assertion with documentary evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Suspension of sentence is a discretionary judicial remedy—not an automatic right.
• Filing an appeal does not itself suspend a conviction or sentence.
• Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the principal statutory basis.
• Accountability cases require consideration of both the CrPC and the National Accountability Ordinance.
• Questions concerning appellate jurisdiction continue to evolve in Pakistan.
• Medical circumstances, prolonged incarceration, and delay in hearing may influence judicial discretion.
• Careful legal drafting significantly improves the prospects of obtaining interim relief.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Can a convicted person be released while an appeal is pending?

Yes. An appellate court may suspend execution of the sentence and release the convicted person on appropriate terms where the circumstances justify such relief.

Does suspension of sentence mean the conviction has been set aside?

No. Suspension merely postpones execution of the sentence. The conviction remains legally effective unless it is overturned in appeal.

Is suspension of sentence the same as bail?

No. Bail generally relates to release before conviction, whereas suspension of sentence applies after conviction during the pendency of an appeal.

Which law governs suspension of sentence in Pakistan?

The principal provision is Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Accountability matters may additionally involve provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Can medical grounds justify suspension of sentence?

Yes. Serious medical conditions may justify interim relief if supported by credible medical evidence and considered sufficiently exceptional by the appellate court.

Conclusion

The law governing suspension of sentence represents one of the most important safeguards within Pakistan’s criminal justice system. It ensures that convicted persons retain meaningful access to appellate remedies while allowing courts to balance individual liberty with society’s interest in enforcing criminal judgments.

The recent proceedings involving the Toshakhana, Toshakhana-II, and £190 Million (Al-Qadir Trust) cases demonstrate that this area of law continues to evolve. Questions concerning judicial discretion, constitutional jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and appellate practice are increasingly shaping Pakistan’s accountability jurisprudence.

For advocates, judges, researchers, and law students, these developments reinforce the importance of careful legal drafting, sound statutory interpretation, and adherence to established judicial principles. As future constitutional and accountability cases continue to refine the law, one principle remains constant: the administration of justice must always uphold fairness, due process, and the rule of law.

About the Author

Disclaimer

This article is intended solely for educational, informational, and legal awareness purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal consultation. Laws, judicial precedents, constitutional interpretations, and statutory provisions may change over time. Readers should consult a qualified advocate regarding the specific facts of their case.

Related Articles on Justify.pk

• National Accountability Ordinance (NAO): Complete Guide
• Criminal Appeals in Pakistan: Procedure and Practice
• Bail Laws in Pakistan Explained
• Constitutional Petitions under Article 199